Arctic
Invent
Case Registry
Dashboard
Case Explorer
Back to Explorer
Update Case Entry
Manually curate individual case documents inside the PostgreSQL engine.
Case Lawsuit Title
*
Case / Trial ID Number
Jurisdiction Code
*
us
in
upc
eu
Category
*
Patent
Trademark
Copyright
Design
Filing Date
Decision Verdict Date
Court / Tribunal
Bench / Panel Judges
Petitioner / Claimant (Plaintiff)
Kamat Yatriniwas Private Limited
Respondent / Defendant
Mai Kamat Deluxe Pure Veg
Dispute Summary
The plaintiff, Kamat Yatriniwas Private Limited, sued the defendants for infringing their registered trademark 'KAMAT' by using a deceptively similar name 'KAMAT DELUXE PURE VEG'. The court granted a permanent injunction against the defendants, directing them to surrender infringing materials and render accounts of profits. The plaintiff had earlier obtained an ad-interim order of temporary injunction, which was extended by the court. The defendants failed to comply with the legal notice issued by the plaintiff, leading to the filing of the suit.
Outcome / Ruling
plaintiff_favorable
Verdict Document PDF URL
Full text judgment
[Cites 5 , Cited by 0 ] Bangalore District Court Kamat Yatriniwas Private Limited vs Mai Kamat Deluxe Pure Veg on 8 July, 2026 KABC170014912025 IN THE COURT OF LXXXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (COMMERCIAL COURT), BENGALURU (CCH-87) Dated this the 8th day of JULY, 2026 Present: Sri Jithendranath C.S., B.A., LL.M., LXXXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU. Com.O.S.No.614/2025 BETWEEN Plaintiff : Kamat Yatriniwas Private Limited, A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 Having its registered office at No.40, 2nd Floor, 4th Cross, Sirur Park Road, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru-560003, Represented by its authorized representative. (By Sri.Thanish Rao B., advocate) - Vs - Defendants : 1. Mai Kamat Deluxe Pure Veg, Karki, Honnavara-581327. 2. Mr. Jatta Shaniyara Naik, Owner, Father-unknown, major, Mai Kamat Deluxe Pure Veg, Karki, Honnavara-581327. 3. Mr.Keshav Thimappa Naik, Owner, Fatter unknown, Major, Mai Kamat Deluxe Pure Veg, Karki, Honnavara-581327. 2 Com.O.S.No.614/2025 4. Mr. Satish Keshav Naik, Owner, Fatter unknown, Major, Mai Kamat Deluxe Pure Veg, Karki, Honnavara-581327. 5. Mr. Karthik Jatta Naik, Owner, Father unknown, Major, Mai Kamat Deluxe Pure Veg, Karki, Honnavara-581327. (Exparte) Date of Institution :25.04.2025 Nature of the suit : Infringement of copyright, trademark Date of the commencement of recording of the evidence : 26.06.2024 Date on which Judgment was pronounced : 08.07.2026 Total Duration : Year/s Month/s Day/s 01 02 13 Digitally signed by JITHENDRANATH JITHENDRANATH S CHELUR S CHELUR Date: 2026.07.08 17:32:47 +0530 (JITHENDRANATH C.S.) LXXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Commercial Court, Bengaluru. JUDGMENT The plaintiff, claiming to be a private limited company and the proprietor of registered trademarks, has filed the present suit seeking judgment and decree against the defendants for the following reliefs: 3 Com.O.S.No.614/2025 (a) Granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their legal representatives, agents/ assigns or anyone claiming through or under them, in any manner, infringing the plaintiff's well established registered mark as detailed in the schedule below including using the word 'KAMAT' along with any prefixes/ suffixes or any variations thereof, (b) Granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their legal representatives, agents/ assigns or anyone claiming through or under them, in any manner, passing off the plaintiff's schedule trademarks or any variation of the same. (c) Directing the defendants to surrender to the plaintiff the entire stocks of unused brochures, invoices, letterheads, hoardings, banners or any other material which contains the plaintiff's schedule marks or any variation of the same; (d) Directing the defendants to pay damages of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) per month commencing from the date of filing the above suit till the defendants stop infringing/passing off the plaintiff's schedule trademarks; (e) Directing the defendants to render honestly and faithfully true accounts of the profits that the defendants have derived by promoting their 4 Com.O.S.No.614/2025 business by using the plaintiff's schedule marks or any variation thereof; (f) Directing the defendants to pay to the plaintiff cost of the present suit; (g) Grant any other appropriate relief(s) as this Hon'ble court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 in the year 1989 and is engaged in the business of operating restaurants, hotels, lodgings, and catering services. The said business originated from the restaurant "Vasant Bhavan" established in 1938, and the promoters of the plaintiff subsequently expanded the business by establishing restaurants in various states of Southern India. The plaintiff is carrying on business under the trade name "KAMAT" and "KAMAT YATRINIVAS" for its restaurants and residential hotels respectively. The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademark "KAMAT" and its various other registered trademarks with suffixes and prefixes in different classes. The details of trademark registrations obtained by the plaintiff are as under: 5 Com.O.S.No.614/2025 6 Com.O.S.No.614/2025 3. In march 2023, the plaintiff came to know that the defendants have opened a restaurant at Honnavara under the name 'KAMAT DELUXE PURE VEG'. Defendant No.1 is carrying on business under the name 'Mai KAMAT', and defendants No.2 to 5 are the proprietors/partners of defendant No.1. The said names are phonetically, structurally and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark "KAMAT". By using the said deceptively similar name, the defendants are infringing the plaintiff's registered trademarks and are passing off their business as that of the plaintiff. The defendants are thereby trying to ride upon the goodwill and reputation accumulated by the plaintiff in respect of the "KAMAT" brand and are causing likelihood of confusion among the public. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 27.04.2023 to the defendants calling upon them to cease and desist from using the infringing trademark of the plaintiff. The defendants failed to comply with the said notice and have refused to stop the infringing activities. Hence, the plaintiff has been constrained to file the present suit against the defendants for infringement of trademark and for passing off. 7 Com.O.S.No.614/2025 4. The plaintiff had earlier filed this suit in O.S.No.4234/2023 before the XVIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Court, Bengaluru against the defendants seeking relief of permanent injunction for infringement and passing off of the trademark "KAMAT". In the said suit, vide order dated 06.07.2023 the court had issued an ad-interim order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from infringing and passing off the plaintiff's trademark "KAMAT" along with any prefixes/suffixes or any variations thereof. When the matter was posted for plaintiffs evidence, the case was transferred to this court under Section 2(c) (xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act, vide letter dated 23.06.2025. 5. Having considered the prima-facie case of the plaintiff, this court by its order dated 29.04.2025 was pleased to extend the ad-interim order of injunction passed in O.S.No.4234/2023 until further orders. The plaintiff has duly complied with the mandate of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC . 6. Suit summons were also issued to defendant Nos.1 to 5 through court process and by RPAD and the same were returned with the endorsement "unclaimed". The court, 8 Com.O.S.No.614/2025 having recorded deemed service, proceeded to hear the case of the plaintiff by placing the defendants exparte. 7. The Managing Director of the plaintiff Sri Narayan Anantrai Kamat, examined as PW.1 and marked Ex.P.1 to P.17 documents. 8. The court has heard the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. 9. The following points arise for the court's consideration: 1 Whether the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff company is the registered proprietor of the trademarks mentioned above? 2 Whether the plaintiff further proves that the defendants' mark infringes the trademark rights of the plaintiff? 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as sought for? 4 What order or decree ? 10. My answers to the above points are as under: Point No.1 : In the affirmative, Point No.2 : In the affirmative, Point No.3 : In the affirmative, Point No.4 : As per the final order for the following; 9 Com.O.S.No.614/2025 REASONS Points No.1 to 3 : 11. Sri Narayan Anantrai Kamat, reiterated in his evidence affidavit the facts pleaded in the plaint. Ex.P.1 is the authorization letter, Ex.P.2 is the Certificate of Incorporation, Ex.P.3 is the Memorandum of Association, Ex.P.4 is the Articles of Association, Ex.P.5 is the photographs of the plaintiff's establishments, Ex.P.6 is the invitation tendered by the defendant, Ex.P.7 is the photographs of the defendant's establishments, Ex.P.8 is the invoices raised by the plaintiff company, Ex.P.9 is the legal use certificates issued by the trademark registry at Chennai, Ex.P.10 is the balance sheets of the plaintiff company from 2019-20 to 2020-23, Ex.P.11 is the notice dated 27.04.2023, Ex.P.12 is the postal receipts, Ex.P.13 to P.15 are the three unserved postal envelopes, Ex.P.13(a) to P.15(a) are the notices sent through Ex.P.13 to P.15, Ex.P.16 is the renewal certificates, Ex.P.17 is the certificate under Section 63 (4)(c) BSA. 12. Among the above documents, the trademark registration certificates, collectively marked as Ex.P.9 indicate that the plaintiff company is the proprietor of the trademarks 10 Com.O.S.No.614/2025 narrated in the plaint. The trademark which is being used by the defendants, although not similar to the naked eye, is phonetically similar. Since the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the word mark "Kamath", the defendants are not entitled to use the same to sell their products. The plaintiff has substantively proved that the mark of the plaintiff is well established in the hotel and food industry. It appears that the defendants are not the registered proprietors of the trademark "Kamath". Therefore, if they use the mark "Kamath" in their trade, it amounts to passing off their products as that of the plaintiff. Though this court has granted an exparte injunction against the defendants, they have not appeared before the court to seek the said order set aside. The defendants have refused to accept the summons. The conduct of the defendants indicates that they have no defense in this case. Therefore, they have not appeared before the court. The plaintiff company, being the proprietor of registered trademarks, is certainly entitled to get its registered marks protected by rule of law. Though the plaintiff has sought compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit, pending rendition of 11 Com.O.S.No.614/2025 accounts, the plaintiff has not adduced evidence to show the turnover of the defendants, the profit earned by them, the monetary loss caused to the plaintiff, etc. Therefore, the court is of the opinion that the plaintiff, at this stage, is not entitled to compensation. The plaintiff, however, is entitled to seek a direction from this court directing the defendants to render their accounts. Point No.4 : 13. In view of the findings on aforesaid points, I proceed to pass the following; ORDER The suit is decreed with cost as follows: It is hereby restrained the defendants, their legal representatives, agents/ assigns or anyone claiming through or under them, in any manner, infringing the plaintiff's registered mark from using the word 'KAMAT' along with any prefixes/ suffixes or any variations thereof, It is hereby restrained the defendants, their legal representatives, agents/ assigns or anyone claiming through or under them, in any manner, passing off their product/service/business in the plaintiff's schedule trademarks or any variation of the same, It is hereby directed defendants to surrender to the plaintiff the entire stocks of 12 Com.O.S.No.614/2025 unused brochures, invoices, letterheads, hoardings, banners or any other material which contains the Plaintiff's schedule marks or any variation of the same, It is hereby directed the defendants to render honestly and faithfully true accounts of the profits that they have derived by promoting their business by using the Plaintiff's schedule marks or any variation thereof. Draw decree accordingly. The office is directed to send a soft copy of this judgment to the parties to the proceedings at their respective e-mail IDs as required under Order XX Rule 1 of C.P.C . and as amended by Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. [Dictated to the Adalat AI Dictaphone Software, edited by stenographer, corrected and signed by me then pronounced in the Open Court, dated this the 8th day of July, 2026] Digitally signed by JITHENDRANATH JITHENDRANATH S CHELUR S CHELUR Date: 2026.07.08 17:33:01 +0530 (JITHENDRANATH C.S.) LXXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Commercial Court, Bengaluru. ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff : PW-1 Narayan Anantrai Kamat List of documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff : Ex.P.1 Authorization letter Ex.P.2 Certificate of Incorporation. Ex.P.3 Memorandum of Association. Ex.P.4 Articles of Association. 13 Com.O.S.No.614/2025 Ex.P.5 Photographs of the plaintiff's establishments. Ex.P.6 Invitation tendered by the defendant. Ex.P.7 Photographs of the defendant's establishments. Ex.P.8 Invoices raised by the plaintiff company. Ex.P.9 Legal use certificates issued by the trademark registry at Chennai. Ex.P.10 Balance sheets of the plaintiff company from 2019-20 to 2020-23. Ex.P.11 Notice dated 27.04.2023 Ex.P.12 Postal receipts. Ex.P.13 to 3 Unserved postal envelopes. P.15 Ex.P.13(a) Notices sent through Ex.P.13 to P.15. to P.15(a) Ex.P.16 Renewal certificates (collectively). Ex.P.17 Certificate U/ Sec.63 (4)(c) of BSA. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defendant : Nil List of documents marked on behalf of the defendant : Nil Digitally signed by JITHENDRANATH S JITHENDRANATH CHELUR S CHELUR Date: 2026.07.08 17:33:07 +0530 (JITHENDRANATH C.S.) LXXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Commercial Court, Bengaluru.
Cancel
Update Case