Thulasi And Thulasi'S Ashoka Jewelry Hall, Mysore v. Thulasi Jewelry Mart, Mysore

JUDGMENT

1. The appeals are directed against the judgment and decree passed by the I Additional District Judge, Mysore in O.S Nos. 1 and 139 of 1999 on 17-9-2004.

2. The appellant Thulasi and Thulasi - Ashoka Jewelry Hall is before this Court seeking for setting aside the judgment passed by the Trial Court and to decree the suit in O.S No. 1 of 1999 as prayed for. Plaintiff in O.S No. 1 of 1999 is the defendant in O.S No. 139 of 1999 and plaintiff in O.S No. 139 of 1999 is the defendant in O.S No. 1 of 1999. The appellant-plaintiff in O.S No. 1 of 1999 - Thulasi and Thulasi - Ashoka Jewelry Hall consists of partners who are two in number having common ancestor by name Thulasi Krishnaiah Setty who had two sons Thulasi Venkatachala Setty through his first wife and T.K Ashwathnarayana Setty, Partner of Thulasi Jewelry Mart, through his second wife. The plaintiff in O.S No. 139 of 1999 is Thulasi Jewelry Mart.

3. As it transpires, there was a registered partition deed between T. Venkatachala Setty and T.K Ashwathnarayana Shetty in respect of coparcenary properties as on 23-6-1944. Thereafter, this T.K Ashwathnarayana Shetty is said to have executed a release deed in favour of T. Venkatachala Setty relinquishing all his rights which was associated in Thulasi family by taking a consideration of Rs. 5,000/-. It appears there was also difference among these two brothers since twenty-seven years till the release deed was executed. After the execution of the release deed and severance of the family relationship in the business; the family business was looked after by the children of T. Venkatachala Setty who had four sons. As per the release deed the shop and jewelry business has fallen to the share of T. Venkatachala Setty. They carried on the business in the name of Ashoka Jewelry Hall. Thereafter, from time to time, they also changed the name as Thulasi and Thulasi Ashoka Jewelry Hall. After severance of business and execution of release deed by T.K Ashwathnarayana Setty in favour of his brother, he commenced business in the name of Thulasi Jewelry Mart. However, what is noticed is, the name of Tulasi Venkatachala Setty and Sons is said to have been continued in addition to Ashoka Jewelry Hall by the sons of T. Venkatachala Setty. But, T.K Ashwathnarayana Setty has established business in Jewelry having prefixed the word ‘Thulasi’ as ‘Thulasi Jewelry Mart’ being the family trade name. It appears, differences arose between the parties when Ashwathnarayana Setty and his sons have started business in the name of Thulasi Jewelry Mart and acquired goodwill and reputation.

4. According to Ashwathnarayana Setty and Sons, the trade mark that is being coined by them is being misused by T. Venkatachala Setty and Sons by adding the words Thulasi and Thulasi in addition to Ashoka Jewelry mart. Thereby T. Venkatachala Setty and Sons have committed illegality as, using the words Thulasi and Thulasi with the name Ashoka Jewelry Mart is by way of passing off, thus, causing damage to the trade name used by T.K Ashwathnarayana Setty and Sons. According to them, due to adding the words ‘Thulasi and Thulasi’ with Ashoka Jewelry Hall by T. Venkatachala Setty and Sons, many customers have complained to them that they wanted to do business with Thulasi Jewelry Mart and, by the tricks used by T. Venkatachala Setty and Sons, their business turnover has increased by 200% since 1998. Further according to them, they have applied for trade mark during 1996. Further, Ashoka Jewelry Hall being a neighbour, tried to make inroads into the business of Thulasi Jewelry Mart run by Ashwathnarayana Setty and Sons. Although the business by Thulasi Jewelry Mart is being carried out since 1944 and has earned goodwill, in order to misappropriate the goodwill, T. Venkatachala Setty and Sons have changed their name by adding Thulasi and Thulasi in addition to Ashoka Jewelry Hall as such, after adoption of such name, there is marked increased in the sales turnover and profits of T. Venkatachala Setty and Sons and consequential loss to the business of Thulasi Jewelry Mart run by Ashwathnarayana Setty and Sons. Thus, according to Ashwathnarayana Setty and Sons, the act of T. Venkatachala Setty and Sons is nothing but an act of passing off and unjust enrichment out of the commercial reputation established by Ashwathnarayana Setty and Sons.

5. It is the specific case of Ashoka Jewelry Hall that after the release deed executed by Ashwathnarayana Setty in respect of family business, the entire trade in terms of jewelry business together with all the special privileges attached to the trade was exclusively conferred on late T. Venkatachala Setty; Ashwathnarayana Setty has severed the relationship subsequent to relinquishment of rights in the family property and family trade which was well-established, naturally acquired the patented right of the family name Thulasi and its phonetic variations as such, the name Thulasi in jewelry trade at Mysore has acquired a distinctive place and it has also acquired name not only at Mysore but also at international level. The late T. Venkatachala Setty having associated with the business for several years, earned the name Thulasi to be associated with him and it is a matter of inheritance to the exclusion of all and is an exclusive right being associated with the family trade for several decades and is also the purchaser of all such rights partly including very special rights that are associated with the trade from Ashwathnarayana Setty. As such, use of the word Thulasi is inseparable part of the existence of late T. Venkatachala Setty and Sons and they cannot survive without the identification of the name Thulasi. So having continued their name since the beginning as Tholasi Krishnaiah Setty and Sons and later as Tholasi Venkatachala Setty and Sons Jewelers and again as Tholasi Venkatachala Setty and Sons Ashoka Jewelry Hall and further as Thulasi and Thulasi's Ashoka Jewelry Hall, thus justified the continuation of the name of the word Thulasi as an inseparable part of their trade name.

6. It is their case that Ashwathnarayana Setty when he executed the release deed, could not continue the business nor could his sons. But, later they started the jewelry business as Thulasi Jewelry Mart. As such, Ashwathnarayana Setty and Sons did not use their ordinary prudence not any degree of diligence was employed and falsely claiming their logo and trade name and also in the process exclusively claiming right over the trade name, the same is being represented on day-to-day basis and also misleading the customers. Thus, plaintiff in O.S No. 1 of 1999 sought for permanent injunction in using the word ‘Thulasi’ with its phonetic variations by the plaintiffs in O.S No. 139 of 1999 and also for a mandatory injunction seeking for production of the books of accounts and balance sheet maintained to keep the daily accounts.

7. According to the plaintiff in O.S No. 139 of 1999, from time to time, T. Venkatachala Setty and Sons went on changing the name according to their convenience making use of the trade mark name of Thulasi which, for the first time, was commenced by Ashwathnarayana Setty after severance of his relationship with his brother and the word ‘Thulasi’ has become the exclusive trade mark of Ashwathnarayana Setty and Sons having acquired reputation and goodwill in jewelry business. Being jealous of the business establishment, the other side have been changing their name from time to time depicting the word Thulasi in one or the other form juxtaposing the name of Thulasi and Thulasi in one or the other manner and also deceptively made it appear to be similar to that of Thulasi Jewelry Mart thereby, creating confusion in the mind of the customers. Stating that it is an act of passing off and unjust enrichment by using the commercial trade name of Ashwathnarayana Setty and Sons who have earned the reputation, they have sought for a declaration that Ashwathnarayana Setty and Sons are the sole owners of the trade mark Thulasi in respect of jewelry and precious stones; also for an injunction against the defendants-Ashoka Jewelry Hall restraining them from the use of the name Thulasi directly or deceptively in respect of jewelry business; also to consider the change of name Thulasi and Thulasi Ashoka Jewelry Hall also as an act of passing off and award damages of Rs. 50,000/- and, also for a mandatory injunction to handover all other infringing publicity materials bearing the name of Thulasi or other deceptively similar name, with costs.

8. On the basis of the above pleadings and prayer, the following issues have been framed in common, by the Trial Court:

1. Whether the plaintiff in O.S No. 1 of 1999 proves that it has acquired exclusive right to use the name ‘Thulasi’ or ‘Tholasi’?

2. Whether plaintiff further proves about the registered partition on 23-6-1944 and about the subsequent release deed dated 16-7-1944, as alleged in para 8 of the plaint?

3. Whether plaintiff further proves that the first representative of the defendant after receiving a consideration of Rs. 5,000/- from Thulasi Venkatachala Setty relinquished all the rights that were associated with ‘Tholasi’ or ‘Thulasi’ family with its phonetic variations as alleged in para 9?

4. Whether plaintiff has established that he has a legal right to use the trade name ‘Thulasi’ or ‘Tholasi’?

5. Whether plaintiff proves infringement of its right by the defendants?

6. Whether defendant proves that it has been trading in the same style for over a period of 55 years as contended in para 4 of the written statement?

7. Whether defendant proves that it is the owner of the name of trade mark ‘Tholasi’ in respect of gold jewelry, silver articles and precious stones?

8. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the declaratory relief sought for by it against the defendant?

9. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction?

10. Whether plaintiff in O.S No. 139 of 1999 proves that it is the sole owner of trademark ‘Tholasi’?

11. Whether plaintiff in O.S No. 139 of 1999 proves infringement of its rights by defendant?

12. Whether plaintiff in O.S No. 139 of 1999 is entitled to the declaratory relief as sought for by it?

13. Who is entitled to the damages and from whom?

14. Whether plaintiff in O.S No. 139 of 1999 is entitled to the relief of injunction?

15. To what relief parties are entitled?

9. For the purpose of convenience, plaintiff in O.S No. 1 of 1999 is referred as plaintiff and plaintiff in O.S No. 139 of 1999 is referred as defendant, hereinafter. On behalf of the plaintiff, one of the witness was examined by way of affidavit and Exhibits 1 to 45 were got marked. On behalf of the defendant, two witnesses were examined and 18 documents were got marked. After hearing both sides, having answered issued 1 to 5, 8 and 9 in the negative, the Trial Court answered issues 6, 7, 10 to 14 in the affirmative and decreed the suit of the defendant by dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff and declared that Thulasi is the trade name of the defendant in respect of jewelry and precious stones and the change in the name by the plaintiff in O.S No. 1 of 1999 as Thulasi and Thulasi's Ashoka Jewelry Hall is considered as an act of passing of and thereby, injuncted the plaintiff from using the words deceptively in their jewelry business as against which, this appeal is filed by the plaintiff raising several grounds and seeking for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 17-9-1994 and to decree the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for.

10. During pendency of the matter, it appears both the parties have approached the trade mark authorities under the Trade Marks Act at Chennai seeking for registration of their trade names and it appears the applications were filed long back and when it was brought to the notice of this Court, by order dated 9-3-2009 this Court had directed the Trade Mark Authority to consider the applications filed by the parties without being influenced by the judgment of the Trial Court. Accordingly, decision is shown to have been taken by the Trade Mark Authority on such direction being issued after considering the applications filed by both the parties and, a detail order has been passed on 30-10-2009 stating that the plaintiff-applicant was allowed to continue with the use of the trade name Thulasi and in addition, to incorporate Ashoka Jewelry Hall along with the prominent features Thulasi and Thulasi's (logo) to eliminate the slightest possibility of confusion and also opined that the word Thulasi was an ancestral origin and both the applicants have a right to use the mark as per provisions of Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and no one can claim monopoly and that the word Thulasi being descriptive, there will not be any confusion. Further, it has ordered the plaintiff to incorporate the words/Coinage Ashoka Jewelry Hall in addition to the words Thulasi and Thulasi, permitting the use of colour of their choice.

11. Various arguments have been advanced by the appellant herein and learned Counsel also took me through the descriptive order passed by the Trade Mark Authority and submitted that the order passed by the Trade Mark Authority on the application filed for allotment of logo and for registration is supporting the case of the appellant and it is also his submission that the Trial Court has passed the order without considering the background and factual position of the case on hand and the common ancestral name being derived by the plaintiff has not been taken note of and further according to the plaintiff, it is their family business and the Trial Court has not looked into the documents viz., partition deed and the release deed and the declaration made by the Trial Court in favour of the defendant is without any basis of law. The registration is given in favour of the appellant to use the name Thulasi over which there may not be a challenge and the finding given by the Trial Court is erroneous as it is without looking into the records and thereby, Trial Court committed an error and there is no evidence of passing off since the name is being used by the family since inception and it is not the name being copied or the business being established subsequently and there is no question of passing off. Accordingly, learned Counsel has sought for allowing the appeals.

12. Per contra, Counsel representing the respondent has submitted that the conclusion arrived at by the Trade Mark Authority has no bearing on the judgment of the case. The Trial Court rightly having found that the respondent and their predecessor having separated from the joint family commenced a new business since 1944 and having established the reputation and goodwill, also earned fame at international level and by the act of the appellant who have been changing their name from time to time, nearly on four occasions, later adopted the name Thulasi, as such, the Trial Court has rightly decreed the suit of the defendant while dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. It is also submitted that after the trade name Thulasi is being adopted by the plaintiff, their annual turn over has increased and thereby deceptively making use of the word Thulasi to make huge profit, there is an act of passing off which rightly the Trial Court has pointed out and the question of the Trade Mark Authority allotting the same name to the plaintiff also has to be dealt separately. Accordingly, in support of his argument, learned Counsel has relied upon several decisions of the Apex Court and this Court.

13. In view of the arguments advanced, the points for determination are:

Whether the action of the plaintiffs amounts to infringement of the trade mark and passing of?

Whether the plaintiffs are justified in using the words Thulasi and Thulasi's in addition to Ashoka Jewelry Hall and whether it amounts to an act of passing off?

Whether the plaintiff are entitled to continue the name Thulasi in addition to the logo Ashoka Jewelry Hall since it has an ancestral origin?

Whether the plaintiffs or defendants are entitled for injunction?

14. At the cost of repetition, it is noticed, plaintiff and the defendant are having common ancestors. Thulasi Krishnaiah Shetty had two sons by name Thulasi Venkatachala Shetty born out of his first wife and Thulasi Ashwathnarayana Shetty born out of his second wife whose successors are the plaintiff and defendant respectively. At the time of executing the release deed during 1944, the defendant is said to have taken Rs. 5,000/- and came out of the family business and commenced separate business by name Thulasi Jewelry Mart. It appears Thulasi is a common name attached to the family of both the parties. At the time of execution of release deed, as a matter of understanding, there was a partition dividing the joint family properties between Thulasi Venkatachala Setty and Thulasi Ashwathnarayana Setty. However, according to the plaintiff, at the time of execution of release deed, it is the defendant who has relinquished the family business and also all the rights associated with the business including the title. According to the plaintiff, they alone are exclusively associated with the jewelry business and earned goodwill in the business.

15. According to the defendant, the moment Thulasi Ashwathnarayana Setty severed himself from the family business and came out and also executed a release deed, he continued a new jewelry business with the caption Thulasi Jewelry Mart. According to them, he commanded lot of goodwill at Mysore and other district places and was an assessee to the income tax since independence and also applied for registration under the Trade Marks Act during June 1996 and they are using the name Thulasi Jewelry Mart since 1944 and as such, under common law, they are entitled for proprietary rights in respect of the name Thulasi over precious jewelry business whereas on the other hand, plaintiff had been changing their names from time to time and on four occasions, they have changed their names with a view to make profit from the goodwill and reputation earned by the defendant and the plaintiff have wrongfully adopted the name Thulasi and Thulasi to be followed by their trade name Ashoka Jewelry Hall whereas Thulasi Jewelry Mart is the trade name which has been associated since 1944 with the defendant's business and has earned goodwill. The way in which the plaintiff have depicted the name of the shop on the Board i.e, Thulasi and Thulasi is shown predominantly whereas Ashoka Jewelry Hall almost looks non-existent, is nothing but to make use of the trade name over which the defendant have acquired goodwill. The plaintiff are not only causing monetary loss to the defendant but also are playing fraud over the customers in the area who are accustomed to have business transaction with the defendant. Even the plaintiff have admitted that they had four different names in addition to Ashoka Jewelry Hall which has been changed from time to time. If at all they had acquired goodwill, there was no need for them to change their business names. The continuation of the use of name - Thulasi in addition to Ashoka Jewelry Hall by the plaintiff causes hardship and also it amounts to an act of passing off, deceptively depicting the name of the defendant's business to make profit to themselves and causing loss of customers and business to the defendant by depicting the name which the defendant is using since inception. Even though the plaintiff claim that the word Thulasi is a family name but, they never used the word Thulasi since beginning and assert their right and, in the beginning they were not keen to trade in the name of Thulasi. Till the filing of the suit, plaintiff never used the property mark which was used by the defendant. The general public in the region are more associated and acquainted with the name/word which is being used by the defendant. There is an infringement of the trade mark that is being used by the defendant since long and they have also suffered loss. By using the name of the defendant, the sales turnover of the plaintiff has increased marginally when compared to previous years. The adoption of the word Thulasi and Thulasi by the plaintiff during 1998 caused pecuniary loss to the defendants. As such, the act of the plaintiff is nothing but violation of the right accrued to the defendant. The act of the plaintiff is nothing but passing off in using the title Thulasi and Thulasi's in addition to Ashoka Jewelry Hall and accordingly, they have sought for the relief as prayed for in the suit filed by them.

16. According to the plaintiff, it is rather the defended themselves who have falsely represented in day-to-day business infringing the exclusive right of the plaintiff in the family business by using the name Thulasi which was used by them over a century. Even according to the plaintiff, although there were several admissions made by the defendant that they have come out of the business under the release deed and also there was an admission to the effect that in the business there will be capital and fixed assets along with goodwill, defendant also pleaded ignorance as to the documents which disclosed to the effect that the defendant's father can continue with the business using the goodwill attached to the business or not. Thus according to them, deposit several admissions to the effect that the goodwill of the family name Thulasi was being abandoned by the defendant's predecessor but still they continued with the trade name Thulasi and it is rather the defendant who have infringed and not the plaintiff and using the words Thulasi and Thulasi is in no way an infringement of the trade mark nor it exclusively belongs to the defendant.

17. What is not in dispute is both the plaintiff as well as the defendant have a common origin of the word Thulasi attached to their family and what is also noticed is, during July 1944 when the son of the second wife viz., Thulasi Ashwathnarayana Setty came out of the family business by executing a release deed, he relinquished all family business in favour of the plaintiff and he has commenced a new business in jewelry under the style Thulasi Jewelry Mart. In course of time, he continued the business with the same logo and it has been succeeded by the defendant herein. However, during 1998, suits have been filed by the plaintiff as well as the defendant separately alleged violation of the trade mark, passing off and thereby seeking for an injunction. What is to be looked into is, despite several admissions being made by the defendant as to the giving up of the right over the family business at the time of coming out of the family during 1944, whether such relinquishment would include continuation of the goodwill of the trade name as, the word Thulasi is having a common origin belonging to both the parties. What is also relevant here to notice is, plaintiff continued their business with their old name and also went on changing the name on four occasions. Further, when the defendant commenced his business - Thulasi Jewelry Mart, it was not objected to by the plaintiff for more than fifty years. But of late, when the defendant started disputing the use of the trade name Thulasi by the plaintiff, plaintiff as a counter blast have made up their mind not only to defend their rights on using the word Thulasi, but also started agitating that the defendant is using their family name Thulasi when the defendant already has acquired right and title by way of acquiescence when he started using the title Thulasi Jewelry Mart since 1944.

18. During pendency of the matter since both the parties have applied for registration of the trade mark name, while identifying the title and giving the same title to the defendant - Thulasi Jewelry Mart, plaintiff were allowed to use the trade name Ashoka Jewelry Hall and also in addition, to use the words Thulasi and Thulasi. That order of the Trade Mark Authority is also placed before this Court.

19. While recognising the right of the defendant herein as to the caption/logo - Thulasi Jewelry Mart, the Trade Mark Authority has also gone through the contents and the contentions of the applicant and also their profits and income tax assessment since. 1950-51 till 1967-68 as also the sales tax assessment and the use of the name in advertisements in the newspapers and telephone directory. It has also been noted that the sales tax assessment discloses that the business is run under the name Thulasi and the income tax assessment is also done under the name of Thulasi Jewelry Mart.

20. Having taken note of the contentions of both the applicants and the prayer, referring to the various decisions of the Apex Court and other Courts as to the descriptive expression of infringement and passing off, the Trade Mark Authority has opined that the Trade Mark Thulasi has an ancestral origin, both the applicants have equal rights to use the Mark as per provisions of Section 35 of the Act and no one can claim monopoly. It has further opined that the stand is also supported by virtue of the coinage Thulasi being descriptive and permitting the plaintiff to use the words Thulasi and Thulasi as a logo along with Ashoka Jewelry Hall to eliminate the possibility of confusion.

21. In the decision in the case of Dhariwal Industries Limited v. M.S.S Food Products AIR 2005 SC 1999, the Apex Court has held that as per Section 39 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, it is possible for a plaintiff or defendant to show that an unregistered trade mark that was being used by another person earlier had been assigned to it and more over such an assignee can tack on the prior use of its predecessor. Further, referring to Section 27 of the Act in respect of unregistered trade mark, it is held granting of interim injunction is permissible in case the plaintiff can show prima facie that it was prior user of its mark and balance of convenience was in its favour.

22. In Narayan's Commentary on Trade Mark, referring to the case of Day v. Brownrigg 1878 LR 10 Ch.D 294, it is contended that in that case injunction was refused on the ground that the alleged act of the defendant was not in violation of any legal right of the plaintiff and also there was rib allegation of malicious intention when the defendant changed the name from Ashford Villa to that of Ashford Lodge which name was being used by the plaintiff for more than sixty years.

23. In Croft v. Day 1843 7 Beav. 84, on the similarity in the use of name, on establishing fraudulent intention, injunction was granted on the ground that no man has a right to sell his own goods as the goods of another……..

24. It is perfectly manifest that to do these things is to commit fraud and a very gross fraud.

25. In the case of Power Control Appliances v. Sumeet Machines Private Limited, it is held acquiescence is one of the defense available under Section 30(1)(b) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. Acquiescence is sitting by, when another is invading the rights and spending money on it. It is a course of conduct inconsistent with the claim for exclusive rights in a trade mark, trade name, etc. It implies positive acts; not merely silence or inaction such as is involved in laches. “It is important to distinguish mere negligence and acquiescence”. Acquiescence is one facet of delay. If the plaintiff stood by knowingly and let the defendants build up an important trade until it had become necessary to crush it, then the plaintiffs would be stopped by their acquiescence. If the acquiescence in the infringement amounts to consent, it will be a complete defence. The acquiescence must be such as to lead to the inference of a licence sufficient to create a new right in the defendant.

26. In the case of Adepu Surendra v. Adepu Ravindra, it is held plaintiff claiming exclusive ownership and using the mark exclusively since 1993 after partition between brothers and also registration is in favour of the plaintiff, is entitled for interim injunction.

27. On perusal of certain documents produced by the parties, even the photographs shows that the defendant are shown to have used the word Thulasi predominantly in addition to jewelry Mart and of course it has to be noted, it has not been disputed by the plaintiff ever since the defendant started using the name Thulasi Jewelry Mart and it appears to be acquiescence on the part of the plaintiff and the use of the word Thulasi by the defendant is without any objection. It is also pertinent to note that the plaintiff started using the word Thulasi predominantly only from the year 1996 or 1998 against which the defendant having objected also are shown to have filed a suit seeking for injunction. The Trade Mark authority allowed the plaintiff to use the word Thulasi and Thulasi predominantly along with Ashoka Jewelry Hall on the ground that business of both the families have a common origin. On perusal of the photographs produced, it is seen the plaintiff earlier are shown to have shown the words ‘Thulasi Venkatachala Shetty’ in addition to Ashoka Jewelry Hall on the name board displayed in front of their shop at Mysore. Use of the word Thulasi alone by the plaintiff predominantly showing Ashoka Jewelry Hall in small caption would definitely mislead the customers and amounts to passing off.

28. In the circumstances, the defendant would be entitled for an injunction against the plaintiff in using the word Thulasi and Thulasi predominantly. However, the plaintiff would be entitled to use the name Thulasi as a prefix in addition to Thulasi Venkatachala Shetty either predominantly or otherwise since the defendant has no objection. But, they are not permitted to exclusively use the word Thulasi along with Ashoka Jewelry Hall as, such usage of the word amounts to an act of passing off. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed thereby permitting the appellant to use the word Thulasi as was being used along with the word Thulasi Venkatachala Shetty and Sons as a prefix as it is also the family name and not to use the words Thulasi and Thulasi with Ashoka Jewelry Hall as it is being specifically adopted depicting the logo of the defendant. The order of the Trial Court to that extent is modified and they are only permitted to use the words Ashoka Jewelry Hall if they intend to continue without Thulasi as logo. The word Thulasi can be used only with Thulasi Venkatachala Shetty and Sons as it was being used earlier.

29. No costs.