The present case revolves around a trademark dispute between Anitha M., the proprietor of “Servo Power Solutions” (the plaintiff), and Yanamala Girija and her husband, Venkataramana Y. (the defendant). The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that she is the sole owner of the trademark “Servo Power Solutions” and requested a permanent injunction against the defendants to restrain them from using the said trade name. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants, by using the same trade name, were misleading customers and unlawfully benefiting from the goodwill she had built. The case highlights issues related to prior use, passing off, and ownership disputes in the context of an unregistered trademark.
The plaintiff’s business, Servo Power Solutions, has been engaged in the manufacturing and servicing of servo-controlled voltage stabilisers, isolation transformers, and UPS systems since June 17, 2013. She claimed that the trade name was coined by her and had acquired distinctiveness and goodwill over the years. The business had grown to serve over 500 clients across Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Goa. The plaintiff submitted financial records indicating a turnover of ₹44,53,381 for the financial year ending March 31, 2017, and claimed that ₹1,20,000 had been spent on advertisements.
The plaintiff contended that the second defendant, Venkataramana Y., had worked as an employee in her company from June 2014 to September 2015. After leaving her employment, he allegedly started his own business with his wife (the first defendant), using the identical name “Servo Power Solutions” to attract customers away from the plaintiff’s business. Furthermore, the plaintiff alleged that the second defendant had unlawfully registered a domain name and started marketing the same products under the disputed trade name.
The plaintiff also revealed that in 2015, her husband, Siddamallappa C., and the second defendant had formed a partnership under the name “M/s Servo Power Solutions.” However, due to financial mismanagement and alleged misappropriation of funds by the second defendant, the partnership was discontinued. Following the dissolution of the partnership, the second defendant, along with his wife, started a business using the same trade name, which, according to the plaintiff, amounted to passing off. The plaintiff argued that the defendants were deliberately misleading customers by leveraging her brand’s reputation, causing financial losses and dilution of her goodwill.
The defendants, in their written statement, denied all allegations and argued that the plaintiff had no exclusive rights over the trade name. They claimed that the second defendant had never been an employee of the plaintiff’s company but had instead been a business associate who had entered into a legitimate partnership with the plaintiff’s husband. The defendants contended that their use of the trade name was independent and lawful. They further argued that they had also obtained VAT registration under the same name in 2015 and had been running the business legitimately.
The defendants also stated that the plaintiff had filed the suit only after her application for trademark registration was refused by the Trademark Authority. They produced evidence showing that the plaintiff’s application for registration of the trade name “Servo Power Solutions” was rejected, and the plaintiff had suppressed this fact in her suit. The defendants also argued that since the plaintiff herself had permitted her husband to enter into a partnership with the second defendant, she could not now claim exclusive ownership over the trade name.
During the proceedings, the court examined documentary evidence, including VAT registration certificates, invoices, business licenses, and financial records. The plaintiff relied on several invoices dating from 2014 onwards to establish prior use. However, the court observed that while the plaintiff had obtained VAT registration in 2013, her financial records showed business activity only from May 2014, raising doubts about whether she had actually used the trade name since 2013. The defendants, on the other hand, submitted a partnership deed dated June 26, 2015, showing that the plaintiff’s husband and the second defendant had jointly run a business under the same name. The court also noted that the plaintiff’s husband had admitted in his testimony that the partnership deed had never been formally cancelled.
The court found that both parties were operating under the same trade name, but there was no evidence to establish that the plaintiff had exclusive rights over it. The court noted that the plaintiff had not secured a registered trademark and was relying solely on common law rights, which require proof of goodwill, misrepresentation, and damages. While the plaintiff had submitted financial records showing her business turnover, she had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that the defendants’ business activities had caused financial harm. The court also observed that the plaintiff had continued to use the trade name without taking legal action for several years, weakening her claim of urgency in seeking an injunction.
Additionally, the court analysed the logos used by both parties and found that they were not identical. The plaintiff’s logo featured a specific design that was different from that of the defendants, who used a different symbol and typography. The court ruled that merely having a similar name does not automatically constitute passing off, especially when the businesses were initially operated jointly.
In its final judgment, the court dismissed the suit, ruling that the plaintiff had failed to establish exclusive rights over the trade name “Servo Power Solutions.” The court found that the plaintiff’s evidence was insufficient to prove prior and exclusive use and that the defendants had a legitimate claim to the trade name through the earlier partnership. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s claim for a permanent injunction, stating that there was no substantial proof of deception or financial harm caused by the defendants’ business activities. The court also held that since the plaintiff had suppressed the fact of her rejected trademark application, she had not approached the court with clean hands, further weakening her case. By The court further held that since the plaintiff’s trademark registration application had been rejected, she could not claim exclusive ownership through a civil suit. The appropriate remedy for seeking ownership rights would have been through the intellectual property tribunal, not a civil court. Moreover, the court emphasised that since the plaintiff’s husband was a consenting partner in the earlier business with the second defendant, the plaintiff could not now assert sole ownership over the trade name without first resolving the partnership dispute.
dismissing the suit, the court reinforced the principle that the mere use of a trade name does not automatically confer exclusive ownership unless supported by continuous and demonstrable commercial goodwill.