On the other hand, Advocate Rashmin Khandekar for the plaintiff underlined that merely because the offending mark being used in the establishments in Vijayawada was the same as the mark being used by defendant no.2 in Kerala, it could not be presumed that there was a direct link between the establishments.
Therefore, he claimed that there was no suppression of facts on part of the plaintiff.
On the aspect of the words ‘Haji Ali’ being publici juris, he claimed that there was no substance in the contention, for the simple reason that the defendants themselves had sought registration of their mark, of which the words ‘Haji Ali’ formed an integral part.
Source: Barandbench
