Dismissed

M/S Aravind Laboratories v. Hahnemann Laboratory Ltd.

Madras HC12 Feb 2014CS/221/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge recorded a Memo of Compromise between the plaintiff and defendant regarding trademark infringement. The court decreed the suit based on the compromise terms, restrained the defendant from using the mark EYELEX, and awarded permanent injunctions as prayed for in the plaint.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed as per the Memo of Compromise; Defendant restrained from using, selling, or advertising 'EYELEX'; Defendant to withdraw trademark application and refrain from filing similar marks; Plaint

M/S Aravind Laboratories Vs Hahnemann Laboratory Ltd. — Intellectual Property | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED :12.02.2014

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI

¶6

C.S.No.221 of 2006

¶7

Aravind Laboratories

¶8

... Plaintiff Vs. Hahnemann Laboratory Pvt., Ltd., 285, B.B.Gangulay Street, Calcutta – 700 012 ... Defendant PRAYER : Suit filed under Order VII Rule 1 of the CPC and Order IV Rule 1 of the O.S.Rules read with Sections 27, 134 & 135 of the Trade Marks Act 1999 praying for (i) granting a permanent injunction, restraining the defendant by itself, its servants, agents, distributors, or anyone claiming through them from manufacturing, selling, advertising and offering for sale using the Trade mark Eyelex upon the goods or in any media and use same in invoices, letter heads and visiting cards or by using any other trade mark which is in any way visually, phonetically or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs registered Trade mark EYETEX or in any manner infringing the plaintiffs registered Trade mark Nos.124824, 271583 and 296914 in Class 3 (b) granting a permanent injunction, restraining the respondent, by themselves, their servants, agents, men or anyone claiming through them from manufacturing, marketing, distributing,

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

¶11

offering or advertising for sale Eye lotion using the mark EYELEX or similar sounding names in the course of their business and pass of their Eye lotion using the Trade Mark EYELEX as and for the EYETEX goods of the plaintiff or enable others to pass off (c) directing the defendant to surrender to the plaintiffs all the Eye lotion, packing material, cartons, advertisement materials and hoardings, letter-heads, visiting cards, office stationery and all other materials containing/bearing the Trade mark EYELEX or other deceptively similar Trade Mark in respect of eye lotion. (d) For a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiffs, directing the defendant to render an account of profits made by them by the use of Trade Mark EYELEX on the goods referred and for a final decree in favour of the plaintiffs for the amount of the profits found to have been made by the defendants, after defendants have rendered accounts (e) direcing the defendant to pay to the plaintiffs the costs to the suit, and (f) pass such further or other orders.

¶12

For Plaintiff : M/s C.Daniel Galdy's Daniel

¶13

For Defendant : M/s Sathish Parasaran

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

Memo of compromise entered into between the

¶16

plaintiff and defendant is filed. It is duly signed by the parties as well as the learned counsel for the

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

¶19

parties. Both the parties along with their counsel are present. The contents of the memo of compromise reads as

¶20

follows:-

¶21

1.The terms plaintiff and Defendant shall mean and include its heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of each party. 2.The defendant submit to a judgment and decree as prayed for in terms of prayer (a&b) of para 25 of the plaint for a) granting a permanent injunction, restraining the defendant, by itself, its servants, agents, distributors, or anyone claiming through them from manufacturing, selling, advertising and offering for sale using the Trade mark EYELEX upon the goods or in any media and use the same in invoices, letter heads and visiting cards or by using any other trade mark which is in any way visually, phonetically or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs registered Trade Mark EYETEX or in any manner infringing the plaintiffs registered trade mark nos.124824, 271583 & 296914 in Class 3 b)granting a permanent injunction, restraining the respondent, by themselves, their servants, agents, men, or anyone

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

¶24

claiming through them from manufacturing, marketing, distributing, offering or advertising for sale Eye lotion using the mark EYELEX or similar sounding names in the course of their business and pass of their eye lotion using the trade mark EYELEX goods of the plaintiff or enable others to pass off.

¶25

The defendant undertakes to withdraw the application filed for registration of the trademark

¶26

4. EYELEX under No.456310B in Class 4

¶27

dated 02.07.1986 with respect to Eye lotion being Pharmaceutical purpose and refrain from filing such Applications for registration of the Trademark EYELEX or any other mark deceptively similar to the trademark EYETEX

¶28

5.The defendant undertakes not to oppose the Applications filed by the plaintiff for the registration of the trademark EYETEX.

¶29

In view of the decree for permanent injunction the plaintiff's have given up the relief contained in Prayer c,d & e in para 25 of the suit including cost of the suit.

¶30

2.Memo of compromise read over to the

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶32

5 parties and they agreed to the terms of memo of compromise. Memo of compromise is recorded. The suit is decreed in terms of memo of compromise. Memo of compromise filed by the parties shall form part of the decree. No costs.

¶33

sd/.G.M.A.J
12.02.2014
//Certified to be a true copy//
Dated this the day of 2016
R.s/01.02.2016 COURT OFFICER
From 25.09.2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies
of the Order/Judgment Decree in this format.

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/S Aravind Laboratories v. Hahnemann Laboratory Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Aravind Laboratories v. Hahnemann Laboratory Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vs the Secretary

The New Inidia Assurance Co. Vs Periyasamy

Dr.P.Manorama Vs Mrs.Shaila Samuel

S.Rajavelu Vs M.P.Chandrasekaran

M/S Phoenix Yule Ltd. Vs Neyveli Lignite Corporation

Smt.M.Brinda and Another Vs Shri.J.Nagalingam & 7 Others