16861 of 2005 seeking permanent injunction against the respondents by restraining them from using their product logo trade mark I am what I am and for payment of damages and for rendition of accounts.
Defendant resisted the claim.
It further held that the plaintiff did number file any application to get the slogan registered as a trade mark until May, 2005.
The Court prima facie found that I am what I am cannot be companystrued as a logo or trade mark of the plaintiff.
Respondents had filed the appeal challenging the grant of temporary injunction restraining them from using the logo I am what I am along with their trade mark.
The trial companyrt, upon companysideration of the pleadings and the documents produced, held that the trademark of the plaintiff under which it carried on business was Gomzi and number I am what I am.
This companyclusion was challenged by the respondents.
12460 of 2006 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Arising out of SLP C No.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court partially allowing the appeal filed by the respondent and directing the trial companyrt to dispose of the suit early, preferably within six months from the date of order i.e. 22.6.2006.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Appellant filed the suit i.e. O.S. No.
Case of the plaintiff was that the trade slogan I am what I am is its distinctive style and design at least since 1998, used on garments which were stolen pirated by the defendant thus infringing their proprietary right including their intellectual property.
The plaintiff further asserted that it first used the logo I am what I am and therefore, it alone can claim rights over the said slogan as a trade mark.
The companytroversy involved was pertaining to the use of the trade slogan I am what I am.
