1.

Trademark protection is available for certain names, symbols, devices, or words that will be used
in connection with a good or service. Technically, if a certain mark is associated with a service, it
is called a "service mark," but trademark is commonly used to refer to both marks associated with
services and goods.
One should know about trademarks because if a person owns a business then Trademarks can be
an effective communication tool as in a single brand, trademarks can convey intellectual
attributes about one’s company and reputation. It also, make it easy for the customers to find the
company as it is a tool to capture attention and provide unique identity to a business. Apart from
these, it helps in acquiring a good will of a company.

2. Legal points discussed in the case:

i. The first legal point was discussed about the words NANDINI/NANDHINI. The word
NANDINI/ NANDHINI is a generic word as it represents the name of Cow in Hindu
Mythology. It is not an invented or coined word.
ii. It has been held that even though both the words are phonetically similar, the trademark
and logo adopted are completely different when seen in totality.
iii. The name and style of business of both parties are different from each other since one
deal in milk and milk products, the other deals in various foodstuffs except milk and milk
products.
iv. The restaurant used the word DELUXE along with Nandhini, followed by the tagline ‘the
real spice of life’, and a device of lamp, whereas KCMPF have used simply used the
word ‘NANDINI’ below the picture of a cow encompassed in a circle. This pictorial
depiction of two trademarks was sufficient to show that there is hardly any similarity
between the two marks.
v. The court also referred to the case of Vishnudas Trading as Vishnudas Kushandas, the
Court held that ‘the proprietor of a trade mark cannot enjoy monopoly over the entire
class of goods and, particularly, when he is not using the said trademark in respect of
certain goods falling under the same class. In this behalf, we may usefully refer to
Section 11 of the Act which prohibits the registration of the mark in respect of the similar
goods or different goods but the provisions of this Section do not cover the same class of
goods’. The Court also held that since the facts have not satisfied the conditions of
Section 11(2) of the Trademark Act, therefore, KCMPF cannot claim protection of well-
known mark.
vi. It was held to the case of ‘concurrent user of trademark’ since no document or evidence
was provided by KCMPF to show that they have acquired distinctiveness within four
years between KCMPF’s first adoption or restaurant’s first adoption.

3. KOVID cannot be registered as trademark. As per Section 9 and 11 of the Trade Marks Act,
1999, a trademark application can be refused registration on either absolute or relative grounds,
respectively. Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act – marks not capable of distinguishing the
goods of one person from those of another, Section 9(1)(b) talks about Descriptive in nature,
Section 9(2)(a): Likely to deceive the public or cause confusion and Section 11: Objectionable in
the light of marks already existing on the Register.
In current times, the term ‘Corona’/ ‘Covid’ has become a household word in India and any mark
having identical/ similar wordings may be objected under these sections, any trademark
containing the term ‘Corona’ or ‘Covid’ or any deceptively similar mark may create confusion or
deceive the public into believing that the goods or services provided under such marks provide
cure or can be useful in providing protection from the virus, which in most cases may not be true.
 In this case KOVID has similar pronunciation as that of COVID, which can cause deception
among the public.
4. Presenting a plaint which shall contain a specific averment to the effect that the suit is filed under
this Order, that no relief which does not fall within the ambit of this rule has been claimed in the
plaint.
The summons of the suit shall be in Form No. 4 in Appendix B or in such other Form as may,
from time to time, be prescribed.
The defendant shall not defend the suit referred to in sub rule (1) unless he enters an appearance
and in default of his appearance the allegations in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted and
the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree for any sum, not exceeding the sum mentioned in the
summons, together with interest at the rate specified, if any, up to the date of the decree and such
sum for costs as may be determined by the High Court from time to time by rules made in that
behalf and such decree may be executed forthwith. This order shall apply to the following courts,
namely: High Courts, city civil Courts and courts of small cause.
Other Courts: provided that in respect of the courts referred to in clause (b), the high Court may,
by notification in the official gazette, restrict the operation of this order only to such categories
suits as it deems proper, and may also, from time to time, as the circumstances, of the case may
require, by subsequent notification on the official gazette, further restrict, enlarge or vary, the
categories of suits to be brought under the operation of this order as it deems proper.
Subject to the provisions of Sub Rules (1), the order applies to the following classes of suits
namely-
Suits upon bill of exchange, hundis and promissory notes:
Suits in which the plaintiff seeks only to recover a debt or liquidated demand in money payable
by the defendant, with or without interest, arising-
(i) On a written contract, or
(ii) On an enactment, where the sum sought to be recovered is a fixed sum of money or in the
nature of the debt other than a penalty: or
(iii) On a guarantee, where the claim against the principal is in respect of a debt or liquidated
demand only.
If written Contract or Agreement is not there then a simple civil recovery suit will be filed on the
basis of facts and circumstances of the case.

The pecuniary jurisdiction is determined by the value of the suit which the plaintiff determines
and mentions in his plaint. In case of an objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction of Court, the
trial court will inquire into that and will pass an appropriate order.

5. According to section 9(g) of The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and

Protection) Act, 1999 a geographical indication which although literally true as to the territory,
region or locality in which the goods originate, but falsely represent to the persons that the goods
originate in another territory, region or locality, as the case may be, shall not be registered as a
geographical indication. Therefore, the act of the person who, took a sapling of mallige to Assam
from Mysore with him and started growing and selling the jasmine grown in Assam as Mysore
Mallige will amount to the infringement of GI.