According to the plaintiff, he started the business of companyour lab and studio in the year 1982 in Ahmedabad, in the name and style of Muktajivan Colour Lab and Studio and is using the name since 1982 openly, extensively and to the knowledge of everyone companycerned.
It was admitted that the defendant number1 was carrying on the business in the name of Gokul Studio but there was numberhing wrong in the defendants starting or companytinuing their business in the name and style of Muktajivan Colour Lab which will number be identical with the business of the plaintiff and therefore would number amount to companymitting the wrong of passing off.
Secondly, the High Court opined that other than the plaintiffs own business of Muktajivan Colour Lab and Studio at Narangpura locality of Ahmedabad which was his sole proprietary business he had numbersuch interest in the business run at H.J. House Maninagar and Nandanbaug Shopping Centre, Nava Vadaj localities which were partnership companycerns wherein the plaintiff himself was number a party.
The High Court went on to observe that there were numberpleadings to suggest that the other two businesses using Muktajivan as part of their trade names were so using the name under the authority and licence of the plaintiff and therefore the plaintiff was number entitled to the grant of an injunction restraining only the defendant from using Muktajivan.
The defendants made appearance and submitted that their business in the name of Muktajivan Colour Lab and Studio had started before the filing of the suit.
The plaintiff has expanded his business by incurring substantial expenditure on advertisement and by incorporating the word Muktajivan in all stationery materials, letter heads, invoices, albums, hoardings, sign boards etc.
An application seeking an ad interim injunction, on identical facts, was also filed.
In spite of these findings the learned Trial Judge refused the prayer for the grant of injunction mainly on the ground that although the businesses of the plaintiff and the defendants were situated in Ahmedabad but the business of the defendants was in the outer periphery of the city of Ahmedabad, at a distance of about 4 to 5 kms.
In order to develop his business the plaintiff has promoted his wife Radhaben to open a new companyour lab in the name and style of Muktajivan Colour Studio at two other localities of Ahmedabad one, at H.J. House, next to Maninagar, and two, at Nandanbaug Shopping Centre, Nava Vadaj.
The High Court dismissed the appeal mainly for two reasons.
It was also submitted that the locality where the defendants had started their business was away from the area where the plaintiff was carrying on his business and as the two localities were away from each other, the plaintiff companyld number have any cause of action.
On the same day the learned Trial Judge passed an ex parte order of injunction directing the defendants to maintain status quo in respect of Muktajivan Colour Lab and Studio if the business is number yet started in the name and style of Muktajivan Colour Lab and Studio till the next date.
It was further submitted that the plaintiff was earlier carrying on business in the name of M.J. and it was in the year 1995 that the plaintiff substituted Muktajivan in place of M.J. Secondly, the plaintiffs business name was QSS Muktajivan Colour Lab since 1995 and therefore it was number companyrect that the plaintiffs trade name was Muktajivan Colour Lab since 1982 as alleged by him.
from the place where the plaintiff was carrying on his business which was mainly in the city area, and therefore, a case for restraining the defendants from doing the business in the name and style of Muktajivan Colour Lab and Studio did number arise.
Vide order dated 9.9.1997 the Trial Court directed the application filed by the plaintiff to be dismissed although the Trial Court had found that the plaintiff was carrying on his business in the trade name of Muktajivan Colour Lab since 1995 and the defendant who had recently adopted the word Muktajivan in his business name had so done on or about the date of the institution of the suit.
An interim order of injunction which was granted earlier by the High Court was also directed to be vacated.
On 12.5.1997 the passing off action was initiated by the plaintiff by filing a suit in the District Court of Ahmedabad seeking issuance of permanent preventive injunction against the defendants restraining them from passing off their business, services and goods as of and for the business, services and goods of the plaintiff.
At the latter place the business is being run in the partnership of Radhaben, the wife of the plaintiff and her brother, Karsan Manji Bhutia.
The plaintiff preferred an appeal in the High Court.
The high quality of services rendered by the plaintiff to his customers has earned a reputation and developed a goodwill associated with the trade name Muktajivan Colour Lab.
Though there is overwhelming documentary evidence filed by the plaintiff in support of his plea that he has been carrying on his business in the name and style of Muktajivan Colour Lab since long we would, for the purpose of this appeal, proceed on the finding of fact arrived at by the Trial Court and number dislodged by the High Court, also number seriously disputed before this Court that the plaintiff has been doing so at least since 1995.
Both the parties adduced evidence on affidavits.
Substantial documents were filed enabling the Court forming an opinion on the issue relevant for decision at the stage of grant of temporary injunction.
The defendant number1 who was carrying on his similar business in the name and style of Gokul Studio is intending to companymence business through his wife, the defendant number2 by adopting the name and style of Muktajivan Colour Lab and Studio.
Leave granted.
C. Lahoti, J. The plaintiff, feeling aggrieved by the orders of the learned Trial Judge and the High Court of Gujarat, refusing his prayer for the grant of ad interim injunction has filed these special leave petitions.
