IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2011 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1933 RFA.No. 308 of 2007(A) --------------------- OS.2/2001 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------ 1. M/S SUPREME APPARELS, VAVVAKAVU, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. 2. VAHAB, PROPRIETOR, M/S. SUPREME APPARELS, VAVVAKKAVU, KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. MR.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: ---------------------------- SHAHUL HAMEED, S/O MOHAMMED KASSIM, PROPRIETOR, M/S. HILTON INDIA GARMENTS, NEW NO.40, BIG BAZAR STREET, NATHAM 624401, DINGIGAL DISTRICT, TAMILNADU. ADV. MR.R.SATISH KUMAR FOR R1 THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ R.F.A.No.308 Of 2007 ---------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2011. J U D G M E N T The defendants in O.S.No.2/2001 on the file of the Additional District Court, Kollam are the appellants. The appeal is directed against the decree and judgment in the above suit. The respondent is the plaintiff. Suit was filed under Trade Marks Act, seeking an injunction against the defendants restraining them from wrongfully selling or offering any goods with the Trade Mark “Hilton India”. 2. The trial court noticed the fact that both the plaintiff and defendants have approached the competent authority for registration of trade mark. The trial court observed that till a trade mark is registered and allotted to them they cannot rush and knock the doors of a civil court claiming injunction. Therefore, the court held that the plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief in the suit against the defendants. Hence the suit was dismissed. ::2:: R.F.A.No.308 Of 2007 3. The plaintiff did not file any appeal against the dismissal of the suit. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the competent authority registered the trade mark in the name of the plaintiff subsequent to the dismissal of the suit. The Certificate of Registration of Trade Mark issued in the name of the plaintiff was produced as Annexure A1(2). 4. By the dismissal of the suit, the only person aggrieved is the plaintiff. It is not known for what reason the defendants have preferred the appeal against the dismissal of the suit. In view of the grant of certificate in favour of the plaintiff by the competent authority, it is for the defendants to seek remedy before the appropriate forum. In the result, the appeal fails and accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-