The High Court at Madras recorded a Memorandum of Compromise filed on 10.04.2015 regarding trademark and copyright infringement disputes. The suit was decreed based on the settlement terms without costs.
Suit was decreed in terms of the Memorandum of Compromise entered into between the parties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :: 15.04.2015
CORAM ::
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. RAVICHANDRABAABU,J.
C.S.No.647 of 2014 and O.A.Nos.797 to 799 of 2014 and A.No.6252 to 6255 of 2014
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt.Ltd rep by its Director Mr.K.Ashok Kumar No.53, Rajasekaran Street, Opp.Kalyani Hospital, Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004
... Plaintiff
M/s.Vignesh Refineries rep by its Proprietor Mr.N.Sundaram, Nachimuthu Gounder Mills, No.86/104, Vadugapatti Road, Mulanur-638 106, Dharapuram TK Tirupur District ... Defendant
Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the O.S. Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C. Rules read with Sections 134 and 135 of Trade Marks Act, 1999, read
with Sections 61 & 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 for permanent injunction and for
other reliefs with costs.
For Plaintiff :: Mr.C.Saravanan For Defendant :: Mr.G.Ramji
2
J U D G M E N T
Today, a Memorandum of Compromise entered into between the parties dated 10.04.2015 is filed before this Court. The said Memorandum is signed by both the parties as well as their respective Counsel. Thus, it is prayed by both the parties that the suit may be decreed, in terms of the above Compromise.
“1.The Plaintiff had filed the above case against the defendant for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the plaintiff's registered trademark GOLD WINEER , the Plaintiff's registered copyright and passing off and other consequential reliefs. The plaintiff has been using the pouch with unique colour scheme and get-up which is registered vide as Trade Mark vide T.M.No.1147963 and copyrighted vide “Copyright Registration No.68242/2005, copy of which is filed as Annexure-A. The defendant's SKS GOLD packaging used and complained by the Plaintiff is shows as Annexure-B .
as shown herein as ANNEXURE-C in pink during the interim application proceedings.
3
amicably wherein the defendant has agreed to change their SKS GOLD packaging by amending the same label and the plaintiff has also accepted the changed packaging / label of the defendant with the trademark SKS GOLD as shown in Annexure-D.
4. The Plaintiff and the defendant jointly submit that in view of the settlement of the parties, the suit may be decreed in terms of the Memo of Compromise and henceforth the defendant shall not use the packaging for its products as found in Annexure-A, B & C or any other label or packaging material which the plaintiff may adopt in future for its product and the Defendant shall use only the label as found in Annexure-D.
acknowledged that the defendant has a substantial stock of the packaging labels as in Annexure-C which shall be disposed off on or before June, 2015 and that the defendant shall not use the packaging label as in Annexure-C after the said date and that they shall use the packaging label as in Annexure-D only thereafter.
K. RAVICHANDRABAABU,J.
4
tsi/srn
decreed in terms of the above compromise.”
15.04.2015
tsi/srn
C.S.No.647 of 2014
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the suit should be decreed in terms of a filed Memorandum of Compromise between the parties.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
K. RAVICHANDRABAABU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court