In the City Civil Court of Calcutta

Suit No. ……………………. / 10/10/2020

Arnob Murgwala s/o Arvind Kejru Murgwala aged 45 yrs

Resident of 30, Park Street

Kolkata, West Bengal……………......................................... Plaintiff

Versus

Arnab Murgwala s/o Arvind Kejru Murgwala aged 43 yrs

Resident of 122, A. J. C. Bose Road

Kolkata, West Bengal…...................................................... Respondent

Application on Behalf of the Plaintiff/Applicant Under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C for

Amendment in Plaint

Respectfully Showeth:
1. That titled civil suit is pending for adjudication before this Learned Court for
today i.e. 11/11/2020.
2. That through this instant application, the applicant humbly seeks indulgence of
this Learned Court for seeking permission to amend the original plaint and add a
paragraph after Para no. 13; proposed amendment is as following:
“14. That Roogle is an internet search engine and the website enjoys great
international presence and is used by more than 80% of Indian internet users on
a daily basis. The website works by automatically generating an organic search
list on the basis of queries entered into the search toolbox by users. Roogle
developed a scheme of online advertising in the year 2019 for businesses or
persons, called “AdVerba”. This scheme involved the auction of certain
keywords that when entered as search queries by internet users on the website
yielded hyperlinks and a description thereof; which were chosen by the highest
bidder. These hyperlinks were triggered in addition to the organic search list,
and are separated from the same by being placed above the same, separated by
being highlighted in a light yellow colour having the words “Sponsored Ads”
being written alongside them. One of the terms of this agreement was that
trademarks cannot be used as keywords and that any such use would, pursuant
to an investigation, result in suspension of that keyword.
15. The Respondent entered into an agreement with Roogle under its AdVerba
Scheme in 2020 when the suit was pending in court. The Respondent bought
certain keywords for use within Delhi and Kolkata, among which were “Arnab”,
“Best”, “Butter”, “Chicken” and frequently misspelt versions of the same. The
suggested post linked to Respondent’s website and the description added along
with the link was “Better than Best Butter Chicken.”. Aggrieved, the Applicant
wrote to Roogle and asked them to remove certain keywords that were his
registered trademark ‘Murgwala’s Best Butter Chicken’. Roogle responded by
saying that they believed that the keywords belonging to the Respondent were
simply part of the commons of the English language and hence could not be
regarded as his trademarks.
16. due to the Roogle advertisement used by the Respondent where the search
words can be confused by the online users for that of the Applicant, a large
amount of sales from online orders have been lost by the Applicant.
17. That this inadvertently amounts to infringement of trademark of the
Applicant by the Respondent along with Roogle, the Learned Court may grant
permanent injunction against the Respondent and Roogle for use of the
Applicant’s trademark and Respondent and Roogle be ordered to pay
appropriate damages t the Applicant.”
 3. That inadvertently, aforesaid fact i.e. proposed amendment could not be added
in the plaint, therefore, permission is sought from this Learned Court for
amendment of plaint as stated above inter-alia on the following:

GROUNDS:

i. That the aforesaid proposed amendment is not inconsistent with the

original version of the applicant taken in the plaint.
ii. That the omission to mention the sentence stated above as proposed
amendment was neither intentional nor deliberate rather it was
inadvertently not mentioned.
iii. That the proposed amendment goes to the root of the case and in order to
determine the real question in controversy by this Learned Court, it is
necessary that proposed amendment may be allowed.
iv. That if the applicant is not allowed to amend her plaint as proposed
above, irreparable loss will be suffered by her.
v. That applicant humbly seeks permission of this Learned Court to raise
additional grounds at the stage of arguments.
PRAYER:

4. In aforementioned circumstances, it is humbly prayed that application in hand

may kindly be accepted & the applicant may graciously be allowed to amend her
plaint as stated above.
5. That an affidavit in support hereof is filed herewith.

PLAINTIFF: Arnob Murgwala

Place:                                                                                

Date:

Advocate for Plaintiff:

AFFIDAVIT
 

I, Arnob Murgwala, the present plaintiff, do hereby state on solemn affirmation as

follows:

1. The property described in para 1 of the plaint originally Plaintiff is the owner of a
restaurant, ‘Murgwala’s Best Butter Chicken (MBBC)’ situated at Kolkata, West
Bengal.

2. That when the respondent found a new restaurant in Delhi in the year 2006 first, and
later in Kolkata in 2017, also got it registered in the year 2018 and started using it for
advertisements, promotions and other purposes.

3. That the plaintiff accordingly has spent a massive amount in advertising to generate
revenue for itself. Because of this, it has become immensely identifiable as a brand in
itself.

4. That the plaintiff submits that the respondent has been obstructing the plaintiff in his
enjoyment of his property because the trademark of respondent’s being very similar to
the registered trademark of plaintiff and also the identity or similarity of the goods or
services is leading to loss to the plaintiff.

WHATEVER stated above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief,
and so I have signed hereunder at Kolkata (Arnob Murgwala).