1934 (3) TMI 27 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Is the plaintiff's business known to the public as "Bombay Art Dyers and Cleaners"?
2. Has the plaintiff acquired the sole right to the use of the word "Bombay" in connection with the dyeing and cleaning business, or is it common in the trade?
3. Has the defendant lawfully adopted the name "Bombay Art Dyers and Cleaners," and is he entitled to use the name?
4. Has the plaintiff suffered any damages as alleged, and is he entitled to any account of the profits made by the defendant?

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Is the plaintiff's business known to the public as "Bombay Art Dyers and Cleaners"?

The court examined whether the defendant intended to attract the plaintiff's customers by using a similar name, and whether the name used by the defendant was likely to deceive the public into believing that the defendant's business was the plaintiff's. The court found that the defendant used a name and setup that could mislead the public into thinking they were dealing with the plaintiff's business. This was evidenced by instances of misdelivered letters and confusion among customers.

2. Has the plaintiff acquired the sole right to the use of the word "Bombay" in connection with the dyeing and cleaning business, or is it common in the trade?

The court noted that the plaintiff had a business with a reputation, but the word "Bombay" was a geographical name and not inherently distinctive. The plaintiff failed to establish an exclusive right to the word "Bombay." The court emphasized that while the plaintiff had a right to a distinct and distinguishable name, the word "Bombay" alone did not grant exclusivity.

3. Has the defendant lawfully adopted the name "Bombay Art Dyers and Cleaners," and is he entitled to use the name?

The court found that the defendant adopted the name "Bombay Art Dyers and Cleaners" with the intent to benefit from the plaintiff's established reputation. The defendant's actions, including setting up business in the plaintiff's former premises and using similar signboards, were likely to mislead the public. The court concluded that the defendant's use of the name was not lawful as it was intended to deceive.

4. Has the plaintiff suffered any damages as alleged, and is he entitled to any account of the profits made by the defendant?

The court assessed the plaintiff's damages based on the loss of business due to the defendant's unfair competition. The plaintiff's business suffered a decline in revenue, which was attributed to the defendant's misleading use of the business name. The court calculated the damages at Rs. 2,550, considering factors such as trade depression, change of address, and curtailed advertising. The plaintiff was also awarded an injunction to prevent the defendant from using the name "Bombay Art Dyers and Cleaners" or any similar name likely to cause confusion.

Conclusion:

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, granting an injunction against the defendant to prevent the use of the name "Bombay Art Dyers and Cleaners" or any similar name likely to mislead the public. The plaintiff was awarded Rs. 2,550 in damages with six percent interest, and the defendant was ordered to pay costs on scale No. 2.