TMI Blog1994 (10) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar 1967 and 1986. According to the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No. 2 has been holding Sunder Nagar Dewali Mela for last 30 years. For the last over five years plaintiff No. 1 has been associated with plaintiff No. 2 in holding the said Mela. It is invariably held in the vicinity of Sunder Nagar, a prestigious locality of Delhi, the national capital. In the year 1993, due to assembly elections, the Mela could be held on the ground of ground of National Zoological Park adjoining to Sunder Nagar. The plaintiffs utilise the net proceeds of the event for various charitable projects such as running a charitable dispensary, primary school for the poor and providing other facilities of utility to the residents of Sunder Nagar. In the year 1993, the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e have no cause of action. It is also submitted that the action of the plaintiff is belated in as much as the defendants have proceeded so much ahead with their preparations as to enter into booking of the stalls and several ancillary contracts as to make their position irreversible. 3. From the perusal of the documents the following facts are found prima facie: The plaintiffs claim to have holding Sunder Nagar Dewali Mela for last over 30 years but they have certainly been holding it since 1985. For Sunder Nagar Dewali Mela, 1994, the plaintiff had initiated publicity first in point of time. The defendant for the first time advertised on 11.10.94 Sunder Nagar Dewali Mela on the ground of National Zoological Park to be held on 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Fourth Edition, Vol. 48, para 169), it is stated: Even though it might be possible for a geographical name to be used with adequate distinction in a way which is not deceptive, a name originally purely geographical in its significance may become so associated with the plaintiff goods or services that its use on its own as a trade mark or name without adequate distinction will amount to passing off, especially if it is used in conjunction with get-up or other indica similar to that used by the plaintiff . 5. So is the view taken in Wotherspoon v. Currie, I Trade Mark Cases 41, Braham v. Beachim 1 Trade Mark Cases 63, Motgomery v. Thompson, 1 Trade Mark Cases 162, Brock (CT) and Company's Crystal Palace Fireworks Ltd. v. James Pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
