Mamidi Suresh Vs Mrs. Sheela Rani

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOs.362, 725 and 729 of 2024

COMMON JUDGMENT:-

C.M.A.Nos.362, 725 and 729 of 2024 were filed assailing the orders passed in I.A.Nos.981, 980 and 979 of 2019 in O.S.No.73/2019 dated 06.03.2024 respectively on the file of Principal District Judge, SPSR Nellore District.

¶5

Initially the Suit O.S.No.73 of 2019 is filed:

¶6

A) Seeking for permanent injunction restraining the defendant therein/ appellant herein by itself, its men, servant, agents or any one claiming through it from in any manner infringing the plaintiff‟s/ respondent‟s trade mark “Sridevi Brand Label” registered under No.2350868 in class 34, by using the impugned Sridevika label or any other mark/ label or marks/ label which is/ are in anyway identical, deceptively similar to or a colourable limitation of plaintiff‟s said registered Trade Mark/ label, either by manufacturing or selling or offering for sale or in any manner advertising the same;

¶7

B) Seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant therein from infringing the plaintiff‟s copy right in artistic work of „Sridevi Label‟;

¶8

C) Seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant therein from passing off its products under the offending trade mark Sridevika and the impugned Sridevika label as and for the plaintiff‟s products under

¶9

2

¶10

the prior adopted trademark of Sridevi label and adopted packaging

¶11

Sridevi brand label;

¶12

D) And other reliefs as prayed in the suit.

¶13

In C.M.A.No.362 of 2024 the appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the I.A as well as in the main Suit. Similarly in C.M.A.Nos.725 and 729 of 2024, the appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the I.A as well as in the main Suit.

¶14

I.A.No.981 of 2019 in O.S.No.73 of 2019 is filed by the plaintiff therein under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking interim injunction restraining the defendant/ respondent by itself, its men, servant, agents or anyone claiming through it from in any manner infringing the petitioner‟s/ plaintiff‟s trademark “Sridevi Brand label” registered under No.2350868 in class 34, by using impugned “Sridevika brand label” or any other mark/ label or marks/ labels which is/ are in anyway identical, deceptively similar to or a colourable imitation of the plaintiff‟s/ petitioner‟s said registered trademark/ label either by manufacturing or selling or offering for sale in any manner advertising the same. The trial Court allowed the said petition vide order dated 06.03.2024. Aggrieved by the same, C.M.A.No.362 of 2024 has been preferred.

¶15

Similarly, I.A.Nos.980 and 979 of 2019 in O.S.No.73 of 2019 were filed by the appellant herein/ plaintiff therein under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking for grant of interim

¶16

3

¶17

injunction restraining the defendant therein from infringing the plaintiff‟s copy right in artistic work of Sridevi Label and seeking interim injunction restraining the defendant therein from passing off its products under the offending trade mark Sridevika and the impugned Sridevika label as and for the plaintiff‟s products under the prior adopted trademark Sridevi and prior adopted packaging Sridevi brand label respectively. The trial Court dismissed the said applications vide order dated 06.03.2024. Aggrieved by the same, C.M.A.Nos.725 and 729 of 2024 have been preferred.

¶18

Since all the CMAs‟ are arose out of one suit i.e., O.S.No.73 of 2019 and since both the parties are one and the same, this Court is inclined to dispose of these appeals by way of a common order.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the appellant(s) and learned counsel for the respondent(s).

¶20

At the time of hearing the matters altogether, both the learned counsel submitted that the Suit itself is posted for arguments and it is coming for arguments of the plaintiff. As such, the CMAs‟ filed against orders passed in IA Nos.979, 980 and 981 of 2019 can be decided.

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellant in C.M.A.No.362 of 2024 states that without going into merits of the case, requested this Court to direct the trial court to consider the Suit on merits, afresh, without observing the findings recorded in the order in I.A.No.981 of 2019 dated 06.03.2024.

¶22

4

¶23

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents also agreed with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. He further submits that the trial court shall proceed with the main suit without influencing the facts and findings made in I.A.No.981 of 2019 dated 06.03.2024 which are contrary to the findings made in C.M.A.No.895 of 2012, which was assailed against the orders in I.A.No.376 of 2011 in O.S.No.222 of 2011 on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Nellore.

¶24

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and agreed to dispose of these CMAs‟ by way of common order. Hence, this Court without going into merits of the case, inclined to dispose of these appeals by directing the trial court to dispose of the main Suit, at the earliest, without influencing the findings made in I.A.No.981 of 2019, dated 06.03.2024 in C.M.A.No.362 of 2024.

¶25