Allowed

Castrol Limited & Another v. M/S.Sr Oil and Co., & Another

Madras HC22 Apr 2014CS/817/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a suit for trademark infringement and passing off regarding the mark 'GO', the defendants admitted infringement. The High Court decreed the suit in accordance with a joint memorandum of compromise wherein the defendants agreed to cease using the mark and surrender infringing materials.

What did the court decide?

Permanent injunction restraining use of mark 'GO'; order to destroy infringing materials; decree based on joint memorandum of compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3.

Castrol Limited & Another Vs M/S.Sr Oil and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 22.04.2014

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN

¶6

C.S.No.817 of 2013

¶7

Castrol Limited Wakefield House, Pipers Way, Swindon Wiltshire, SN 3 1RE, United Kingdom rep.by Constituted Attorney Mr.Muralidhar Balasubramanian 2. Castrol India Limited 781-785 Rayala Towers, V Floor Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002 rep.by Constituted Attorney Mr.Muralidhar Balasubramanian .. Plaintiffs Vs. 1. M/s.SR Oil and Co. No.37, Tass Industrial Estate Ambattur, Chennai 600 098 2. M/s.Popular Scooters No.5, State Bank Street Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002 .. Defendants Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure read with Sections 27, 28, 29, 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 prays for a judgment and decree against the defendants (a) a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their proprietor/partners, heirs, legal representatives, successors-in-business, assigns, servants, agents, dealers, retailers, distributors, stockists, representatives or any of them from infringing the plaintiffs' trademark "GO"or any mark structurally, phonetically, visually identical and/or deceptively similar thereto in any manner whatsoever; (b) A perpetual injunction restraining the

¶8

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

¶9

¶10

defendants, by themselves, their proprietor/partners, heirs, legal representatives, successors-in-business, assigns, servants, agents, dealers, retailers, distributors, stockists, representatives or any of them from in any manner passing off or enabling others to pass off defendants' lubricants, oils, greases and such other cognate/allied goods as and for plaintiffs' products by use of the mark "GO"which is identical and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' prior adopted and exclusively used trademark "GO'" in any other manner whatsoever; (c) the defendants be ordered to surrender to plaintiffs for destruction all goods, containers, cartons, labels, prints, blocks, dyes, plates, moulds and other material bearing the offending mark "GO"" and/or any other variants deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered trademark; (d) the defendants be directed to pay to the plaintiffs as compensatory and punitive damages a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for their acts of infringement of trademark and passing off; (e) a preliminary decree be passed in favour of the plaintiffs directing the defendants to render account of profits made by use of the identical trademark "GO" and a final decree be passed in favour of the plaintiffs for the amount of profits thus found to have been made by the defendants after the latter have rendered accounts (f) for costs of the suit.

¶11

The parties have filed a joint memorandum of compromise dated 22.4.2014, whereby and whereunder the defendants have

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

agreed to submit for a decree.

¶15

The memorandum of compromise reads thus:

¶16

" Memorandum of compromise filed by the plaintiffs and the defendants under Order XXIII Rule 3 r/w

¶17

Section 151 of CPC.

¶18

The plaintiffs and the defendants respectfully submit as follows: 1. The defendants admit and acknowledge that the first plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademark "GO!"in India and in various countries.

¶19

The defendants agree that they adopted

¶20

and used an identical trademark "GO" for their products. The defendants, having realized that use of the mark "GO" amounts to infringment of plaintiffs' registered trademark "GO!" as well as passing off, has decided to stop using the said

¶21

mark in the course of their business. The defendants have further agreed to put all possible and reasonable efforts to retract their products

¶22

under the identical infringing trademark "GO" from the market.

¶23

The defendants hereby agree and undertake

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

to this Hon'ble Court not to copy/adopt/use or otherwise deal with the trademark "GO!" or any marks similar thereto.

¶27

4. The defendants agree to submit themselves

¶28

to:

¶29

a) A perpetual injunction
restraining the defendants by
themselves, their
proprietor/partners, heirs, legal
representatives, successors-in-
business, assigns, servants,
agents, dealers, retailers,
distributors, stockists,
representatives or any of them
from infringing the plaintiffs'
trademark "GO!" registered under
No.1298658 in class 4 by use of
the mark "GO" or nay marks
structurally, phonetically,
visually identical and/or
deceptively similar thereto in
any manner whatsoever; and
b) A perpetual injunction

¶30

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

¶31

¶32

restraining the defendants, by themselves, their proprietor/partners, heirs, legal representatives, successors-inbusiness, assigns, servants, agents, dealers, retailers, distributors, stockists, representatives or any of them from in any manner passing off or enabling others to pass off defendants' lubricants, oils, greases and such other cognate/allied goods as and for plaintiffs' products by use of the mark -in-business, assigns, servants, agents, dealers, retailers, distributors, stockists, representatives or any of them from infringing the plaintiffs' trademark "GO!" which is identical and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' prior adopted and exclusively used trademark -inbusiness, assigns, servants,

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

agents, dealers, retailers, distributors, stockists, representatives or any of them from infringing the plaintiffs' trademark "GO!" in any other

¶36

manner whatsoever.

¶37

The defendants further agree that they shall destroy all barrels, containers, cartons, packaging empty or filled with oils, lubricants, greases, labels, prints, blocks, dyes, plates, moulds, literature and other materials bearing the identical trademark -in-business, assigns, servants, agents, dealers, retailers, distributors, stockists, representatives or any of them from infringing the plaintiffs' trademark "GO!" remaining with them, in the presence of a representative of the plaintiffs.

¶38

The parties shall bear their own costs.""

¶39

The plaintiffs are represented by its duly constituted attorney Mr.Murlidhar Balasubramanian. The first defendant is represented by Mr.C.Maheswaran, who is stated to be the

¶40

Managing Director. The second defendant is represented by Mr.Deepak Singh, Managing Partner. The defendants, who are present in open Court, admitted that they have filed the joint

¶41

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

¶42

¶43

memo of compromise and they have no objection in decreeing the suit as indicated in Clause 4 of the Memorandum of Compromise.

¶44

In view of the Joint Memorandum of Compromise filed by the parties, there shall be a judgment and decree as indicated in Sub Clauses (a) and (b) of Clause (4) of the Memorandum of Compromise.

¶45

In the result, the suit is decreed in accordance with
the Joint Memorandum of Compromise. The memo shall form part
of the record. No costs.
sd/.K.K.S.J
22.04.2014
//Certified to be a true copy//
Dated this the day of 2016
S.s/20.07.2016 COURT OFFICER
From 25.09.2008 the Registry is issuing certified
copies of the Order/Judgment Decree in this format.

¶46

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

Castrol Limited & Another v. M/S.Sr Oil and Co., & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Castrol Limited & Another v. M/S.Sr Oil and Co., & Another

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

Rajkumar Sethupathy Vs M/S. Mid Valley Entertainment

Vesa Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Vs K.G.S.Nair

K.Lalli Vs S.Pappi and 5 Others

Mr.S.Ganesan Vs Mr.S.Narayana RAo@ Narayanan

Mrs.Krishna Ponnuswamy&Another Vs Dr.Punitha Anand and 9 Others

M/S Hindustan Lever Ltd., Vs Eureka Forbes Ltd., & Another