The Court of Appeal has reversed the decision of the High Court and cleared Nalli Private Ltd of any responsibility for trademark infringement.
This is the latest development in a dispute spanning three decades between two branches of Mr Nalli Chinnasami Chetty’s family.
Two factions of the family, Nalli Pte Ltd (NPL) and Nalli Chinnasami Chetty Pte Ltd, (NCCPL) clashed over the rights to the coveted “Nalli” name and logo displayed at their shops in Little India.
Justice Aedit Abdullah, while delivering the Court of Appeal’s ruling, urged both parties to consider the appropriate compromise, as that would allow the other to pursue its business with as little friction as possible.
Said Justice Abdullah in his judgement: “Indeed, the relatively trivial nature of many of the parties’ complaints suggests that much benefit would result from a recognition that such disputes are but mere storms in a teacup and a reorientation of their efforts toward co-existence.”
Nalli, an Indian clothing and silk sari store based in Chennai, was founded in 1928 by Mr Chetty, a weaver.
Since 1935, the business has been recognised as “Nalli Chinnasami Chetty” retailing saris from its shop at Panagal Park in Chennai.
The legal battle involves NPL and NCCPL. Mrs Madhavan, Mr Chetty’s granddaughter from his second wife, along with her father, Mr Nalli Duraiswami Chetty, are directors and shareholders of NPL in Singapore.
On the other side are Mr Nalli Kuppuswami Chetti and Mr Nalli Ramanathan, who are partners in Nalli Chinnasami Chetty in India and directors and shareholders of NCCPL in Singapore. They are descendants of Mr Chetty by his first wife.
The conflict stems from the use of the “Nalli” name by both parties, leading to trademark disputes and legal battles since 1992.
In 1997, the parties reached a settlement. The Deeds of Settlement allowed NCCPL and NPL to both use the name “Nalli” in their businesses in Singapore and register their trademarks.
However, this settlement was disrupted in 2020, when NPL opened a new store at 2C Buffalo Road in Little India, sparking a legal dispute.
A lawsuit was commenced on March 30, 2020 against NPL for breaking the Deeds of Settlement.
NCCPL claimed that NPL breached the deeds of settlement. The respondents said that NPL broke the agreement by using the name Nalli incorrectly. They claimed NPL used the word Nalli as its business name instead of “Nalli Pte Ltd” by giving prominence to the word “Nalli” and significantly reducing the emphasis on the words “Pte Ltd” on its signage at the NPL shop at 2C Buffalo Road.
They also alleged that NPL used the words “Nalli” and “Nalli Singapore” both as a trademark and a business name on its marketing collateral, including its carrier bag, sari box and price card. They further said NPL had the words “Original Nalli Products” on its display case with the word “Nalli” being given prominence.
NPL disputed the claims on several grounds, which Justice Andre Maniam rejected. On May 17, 2022, the High Court ruled in favour of NCCPL leading NPL to appeal the decision.
NPL counterclaimed against NCCPL for similar offences. The case reached the Court of Appeal, which on May 27 overturned some of the High Court’s decisions, ruling that NPL was not at fault for breaching the Deeds of Settlement and that the appellants were not collectively responsible for trademark infringement.
Justice Abdullah emphasised that the candle motif used by NPL conveyed a distinct concept from NCCPL’s cursive rendering of the word Nalli. Despite both trademarks containing the word Nalli, the court found that the differences in visuals and concepts were significant enough to prevent consumer confusion.
Claims of malicious falsehood from both sides were dismissed.
