IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 WA.No. 337 of 2009 --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.2451/2009 DATED 22/01/2009 .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- CHANDRAN S., TC X/1980, THOZHUVANCODE, VATTIYOORKAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.R.GOPAN RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RANGE, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, FORT SUB DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY (FORT), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. VIJAYAN, ASWATHY, BEACH ROAD, KOVALAM. 5. SHYLAJA, OWNER ASWATHY, BEACH ROAD, KOVALAM. 6. SATHEESAN, LALITHA BHAVAN, KALLAMPALLY, SREEKARIYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. M.MOHANAN, SEASAND BAKERY, LIGHT HOUSE BEACH, KOVALAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K. MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. J.B. Koshy,Ag.C.J. & P. Bhavadasan, J. ---------------------------------------- W.A No. 337 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of February, 2009 Judgment Koshy, Ag.C.J. Appellant is the Managing Partner of Hotel Sea View Palace and Santhana Restaurant. Petitioner also got temporary registration of the name 'Hotel Sea View Palace and Santhana Restaurant'. It is also stated that respondents 4 to 7 are using the name 'Old Santhana Restaurant'. It is his case that there is violation of the registered trade mark. Petitioner filed a petition before the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram for a permanent prohibitory injunction and for damages and it was compromised later and decree was passed on the basis of the compromise. Despite that the board was not removed is the complaint. If the compromise decree is not complied with, it is for the petitioner to approach the District Court itself. If the petitioner has got any other case regarding violation of trade mark, it is for him to approach the civil court to get an injunction etc. Therefore, without going into the merits, writ petition was dismissed. We are in perfect agreement with the views of the learned single Judge. Appeal is dismissed. J.B.Koshy Acting Chief Justice P. Bhavadasan Judge vaa