Judgment :- A. Ramamurthy, J. 1. Applicant/plaintiff filed three petitions under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to pass an order of ad-interim injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from using the offending trade mark 'Kerala Jewellers' or any other mark, label or device which is identical with or in any manner similar or deceptively similar to or a colourable imitation of the applicant's trade mark either as a trade mark or trading style in any of its manufacturing activities, price list, etc., and also passing off goods as those of the applicant's by using the offending trade mark 'Kerala Jewellers' and also restraining from infringing the applicant's copyright and artistic work in any manner by reproducing the mark 'Kerala Jewellers' or any other label or artistic work which is similar to that of the applicant. 2. The facts in brief for the disposal of these applications are as follows :- The applicant/plaintiff is an established organisation in the business of jewellery, precious stones and silverwares for several decades. The applicant had honestly conceived and adopted the trade mark 'Kerala Jewellers' for all its products. The applicant company had also applied for registration in the office of the Registrar of Trade Mark at Chennai, in Class 14 and the application is pending. For the last 35 years, the said mark has become highly distinctive and has acquired extreme popularity on account of its extensive use all over India and also on account of superior quality of products offered at reasonable prices. The applicant has acquired exclusive monopolistic rights over the said mark under the common law by virtue of being the long factual user of the said mark. The applicant company had also acquired common law rights to the copyright of the artistic representation through stylished letters and its artistic depiction. The trade mark has become very popular and the sales turnover has increased over the years to several crores of rupees. The applicant has also been spending considerable time, labour and money to promote its products under the said trade mark and has earned a high degree of reputation and goodwill. 3. The trade mark has become very popular and the sales turnover has increased over the years to several crores of rupees. The applicant has also been spending considerable time, labour and money to promote its products under the said trade mark and has earned a high degree of reputation and goodwill. 3. The applicant recently learnt that the respondent has practically adopted an identical or at any rate a deceptively similar trade mark 'Kerala Jewellers' for the same type of business activity in Trichy since 1.2.98 and has been passing off its goods as that of the applicant, besides causing a confusion among the public and making them believe that the respondent is but a branch of the applicant. The applicant caused a legal notice to the respondent, but there was no inclination on the part of respondent to refrain from passing off its goods. The respondent has wilfully violated the trade mark and copyright of the applicant over its mark and has made an exact duplication of the applicant's mark. Unless the respondent is restrained from infringing the applicant's trade mark and copyright and from passing off its products, they will be put to much loss and hardship and, hence, these petitions. 4. The respondent filed a common counter affidavit alleging that the partnership was constituted on 6.9.97 and all the partners hail from Trichur in State of Kerala. The use of the name 'Kerala Jewellers' was honest and bona fide. They were not aware that there are any other concerns selling jewellery under the same name. In and around Trichy, there were large number of public sector undertakings like BHEL, OFT, Southern Railway wherein a lot of people hailing from Kerala were employed. To cater to their needs, the respondent started this business, the underlying idea being to indicate of such people that the jewellery that they sell are made by craftsmen in Kerala. The respondent does not manufacture jewellery but obtains traditional and modern Kerala type jewellery from various goldsmiths in Kerala. The business was started at Trichy on 1.2.98. The applicant issued a letter through the lawyer dated 5.3.98 and a reply was sent on 27.3.98. The applicant was called upon to give the date of registration of the name 'Kerala Jewellers', partners of the firm with their address and trade name. Until the filing of the suit, there was no reply from the applicant. The applicant issued a letter through the lawyer dated 5.3.98 and a reply was sent on 27.3.98. The applicant was called upon to give the date of registration of the name 'Kerala Jewellers', partners of the firm with their address and trade name. Until the filing of the suit, there was no reply from the applicant. The applicant made no complaint of such use by the respondent, but on the other hand stood by allowing the respondent of build up its goodwill. The applicant has acquiesced to the respondent's use of the name 'Kerala Jewellers'. In view of the laches and delay, the applicant is not entitled to the relief sought for. The applicant has also advertised that they have their offices only at Chennai and they do not have any other branch. 5. The applicant does not manufacture any jewellery but like the respondent obtains the jewellery inter alia from various wholesales in Kerala. The applicant cannot have a monopoly of the words 'Kerala Jewellers' which in any event are descriptive words and cannot be registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. The words 'Kerala Jewellers' have come to be associated with the area. The applicant does not have any exclusive right over the words 'Kerala Jewellers' or any copyright. The respondent is a small concern and selling its products only in and around Trichy. This is the only business and source of livelihood for the four brothers. Any order of injunction would cripple their business and cause great loss and hardship. The applicant's business is said to be over several crores. The balance of convenience is only in favour of the respondent, since the business is confined only to Trichy, while the applicant's business is admittedly confined to City of Chennai. As on today, no confusion has ever arisen over the words 'Kerala Jewellers.' 6. Heard the learned counsel of both sides. 7. The applicant/plaintiff filed three applications to restrain the respondent from infringing upon the applicant's trade mark, copyright and from passing off its products relating to Kerala Jewellers. Learned counsel for the applicant stated that for over 31/2 decades, the mark has become highly distinctive and acquired extreme popularity and by virtue of long user of the said mark, they are entitled to get the relief pending disposal of the suit. Learned counsel for the applicant stated that for over 31/2 decades, the mark has become highly distinctive and acquired extreme popularity and by virtue of long user of the said mark, they are entitled to get the relief pending disposal of the suit. The respondent has practically adopted an identical or at any rate a deceptively similar trade mark 'Kerala Jewellers' for the same type of business activity in Trichy since 1.2.98 and for which, a notice was sent on 5.3.1998. The respondent also sent a reply on 27.3.1998; but, however, the respondent has not shown any inclination to refrain from passing off the goods as those of the applicant. 8. It is necessary to state that the trade mark of the applicant has not been registered but according to para 3 of the affidavit, application has been filed before the Registrar of Trade Marks at Chennai and the same is pending. Apart from that, the particulars of the date and other details have not been furnished. Learned counsel for the respondent mainly contended that their area of operation is only at Trichy whereas the applicant's area of operation is only at Chennai. The respondent sent a reply on 27.3.98 calling for proper particulars from the applicant and no particulars were furnished for a period of more than one year, and the suit has been filed. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the applicant has acquiesced respondent's use of the name 'Kerala Jewellers' and in view of the laches and delay, the applicant is not entitled to get the discretionary reliefs sought for. 9. The applicant filed typed set of documents to show that they have applied for registration before the authorities on 26.2.1998. They have also produced the receipts and bills from the customers for the period from 2.9.1998 to 16.10.1998 and the learned counsel for the applicant stated that their business turnover was more than several crores of rupees. 9. The applicant filed typed set of documents to show that they have applied for registration before the authorities on 26.2.1998. They have also produced the receipts and bills from the customers for the period from 2.9.1998 to 16.10.1998 and the learned counsel for the applicant stated that their business turnover was more than several crores of rupees. Learned counsel for the applicant also relied on a passage from the Book T.R. Srinivasa Iyengar's The Trade & Merchandise Marks Act and Rules, 3rd Edition 1989 relating to the use of geographical names, "Geographical terms and words in common used to designate a locality, a country or a section of a country cannot be monopolised trade marks; but a geographical name not used in a geographical sense to denote a place of origin but is used in an arbitrary or fanciful way to indicate origin or ownership regardless of location, may be sustained as a valid trade mark. Ordinarily, while a prior user of a mere geographical name will not constitute such name a trade mark, the rule has no application to trade names. A combination of geographical or place names with other symbols or marks may be sustained as a trade mark XX... Even though a geographical name may not be a valid trade mark, it will be protected against unfair competition...". There is no dispute about this principle. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant also relied on M/s. R.P. Locks Company v. M/s. Sehgal Locks Co., and Others, 1988 PTC 10, relating to infringement of trade mark for the proposition that as regards acquiescence, that may be relevant circumstance which is to be taken into consideration in deciding when damages are to be awarded. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant also relied on M/s. R.P. Locks Company v. M/s. Sehgal Locks Co., and Others, 1988 PTC 10, relating to infringement of trade mark for the proposition that as regards acquiescence, that may be relevant circumstance which is to be taken into consideration in deciding when damages are to be awarded. They also relied on Brooke Bond of India Limited, Calcutta v. Balaji Tea (India) Pvt Ltd., Rajpur, 1993 PTC 40 , for the proposition that since the copyright action emerges from the same bundle of facts from which the trade mark and passing off action emerge and admittedly copyright action is maintainable in this Court, it will not serve the ends of justice if leave is refused for joinder of causes of action falling under the Copyright Act and the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and accordingly the suit shall proceed for all the causes of action of the infringement of copyrights, trade marks and passing off and shall be disposed of in accordance with law. In fact, in the present case, the applicant was already granted permission to combine the causes of action for infringement of trade mark and passing off and also for the infringement of the copyright to file a single suit in Application No. 2577/99. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on Power Control Appliances v. Sumeet Machines Pvt. Ltd., wherein it is observed as follows: "Acquiescence is one of the defences available under Section 30(1)(b) of the 1958 Act. 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 license sufficient to create a new right in the defendant." This decision is applicable to the case on hand. 12. 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 license sufficient to create a new right in the defendant." This decision is applicable to the case on hand. 12. It is admitted that the applicant sent a notice to the respondent as early as 5.3.1998. The respondent also sent a reply on 27.3.1998 and sought some clarifications as follows : (1) Who all are the partners of your client's firm and whether any or all of them hail from the State of Kerala ? (2) Whether your clients are dealing in traditional/modern KERALA Jewellery ? (3) When did your clients file an application for registration of the descriptive expression "KERALA JEWELLERS" as a trade mark and what is the present status thereof ? (4) Whether the trade name KERALA JEWELLERS is being used by your clients in any particular/artistic style and if so, a specimen of the same be furnished. (5) Full address of your clients' so called branches under the same name, viz., Kerala Jewellers, in other places be furnished. It is further stated in the reply itself that the business of the respondent is a localised business based in Trichy and they have no business activities in the area where the applicant appears to be carrying on business. It is further stated that on receipt of the details and materials asked for, they shall further consider the matter and revert to the applicant. However, curiously enough the applicant has not sent any particulars as called for in the reply notice and the applicant has also not filed the suit immediately. On the other hand, the suit was filed only on 18.2.1999 before this court. If really the respondent is using the trade mark of the applicant and passing off the goods as that of the applicant, naturally the applicant would have rushed to the court for getting an interim relief. In the present case, only after a period of one year from the exchange of notice between the parties, the applicant has filed this application before this court. No valid reason has been given for the inordinate delay of one year and it therefore, follows that the applicant has allowed the respondent to carry on business at Trichy. In the present case, only after a period of one year from the exchange of notice between the parties, the applicant has filed this application before this court. No valid reason has been given for the inordinate delay of one year and it therefore, follows that the applicant has allowed the respondent to carry on business at Trichy. Further more, the business of the applicant is mainly only at Chennai and it has made specific advertisement that the applicant company had no other branches in any other area. On the other hand, the business of the respondent is only at Trichy and it has nothing to do with the business at Chennai. There is absolutely no material now to come to the conclusion that the respondent is passing off the goods as that of the applicant and considering the laches on the part of the applicant in coming to the court bela 13. For the reasons stated above, all these applications fail and they are accordingly dismissed.