Dismissed

Sangeetha Mobiles Private Ltd. v. M/S.Xpress Wave and Another

Madras HC6 Jan 2017CS/80/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiff failed to complete evidence despite multiple adjournments from 2014 to 2016. The High Court held the plaintiff had no interest in prosecuting the suit and dismissed it for non-prosecution without costs when the plaintiff was party to a civil suit concerning trade mark infringement and the plaintiff had failed to prosecute it.

What did the court decide?

Suit dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs awarded.

Sangeetha Mobiles Private Ltd. Vs M/S.Xpress Wave and… — Company and Corporate | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 06.01.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

C.S.No.80 of 2011

¶7

Sangeetha Mobiles Private Ltd., No.56, 2^nd Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083, rep. by its Managing Director, Mr.L.Subash Chandra

¶8

...Plaintiff

¶9

Versus

¶10

M/s. Xpress Wave Shop No.34, No.129, G.N.Chetty Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006.

¶11

M/s. Wavetell Co. No.131, Karikalan Street, Near St. Thomas Mount Railway station, Adambakkam, Chennai-600 088 ...Defendants

¶12

The plaint is filed and numbered as Civil Suit under order VII Rule 1 of O.S. Rules and Order VII Rule 1 of CPC r/w Section 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, praying for a judgment and decree:

¶13

(a) Granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their servants or agents or anyone claiming through them from in any

¶14

¶15

manner infringing the plaintiffs' well established trade name “WAVE Communications and the trade “Wavetel” by using the word “wave” and/or “Wavetell” as part of their trading style and the offending trade mark “Wavetell co” or any other mark or marks which are identical and similar to or a colourable imitation of the plaintiff's well established trade name “Wave Communications; and the trade mark “Wavetel”;

¶16

(b) Granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant above named by themselves, their servants, agents or anyone claiming through them from in any manner passing of their products by using the word “wave” and/or “Wavetell” as part of their trading style and the offending trade mark “Wavetell co” as and for the celebrated products of the plaintiffs bearing the well established trade mark “Wavetel” and the trade name “WAVE Communication” either by manufacturing or selling or offering for sale or in any manner advertising the same;

¶17

(c) Directing the defendant to surrender the entire stock or unused offending trade mark wrappers, bill books etc. bearing the offending trade mark “Wavetell co” and the trade name, together with blocks and dyes for destruction.

¶18

(d) Directing the defendant to render a true and faithful accounts of the profits earned by the defendant through the sale of his products sold under the offending trade mark “Wavetell co” and the offending trade name and directing payment of such profits to the plaintiffs for the passing of committed by the defendants.

¶19

¶20

(e) Directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the cost of the suit;

¶21

For Plaintiff : Mr.H.Manojin For Defendants : Ex-parte

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The plaintiff has not shown any interest in completing the evidence, even though several opportunities have given by the Master in the year 2014 itself. The notes prepared by the Master clearly shows that several opportunities have been given to the plaintiff, but he has not turned up from 2014 to 2016. Two years have gone but the plaintiff

¶24

has no interest in prosecuting the case.

¶25

2. Hence, the suit is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs.

¶26

06.01.2017

¶27

Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No rts

¶28

¶29

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J., rts

¶30

C.S.No.80 of 2011

¶31

06.01.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in

Sangeetha Mobiles Private Ltd. v. M/S.Xpress Wave and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangeetha Mobiles Private Ltd. v. M/S.Xpress Wave and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D. Satish Babu Vs Ms. R. Vasantha

E.K.Rajan Vs v.Natarajan and another

Will of Mr.K.Chakrapani Vs Mr.K.Meikandan

W.S.Seetharam Vs T.R.T.Thirumalvasi & Another

P.Senkeni and 2 Others Vs P.Subramani and Another

H.Shankar Vs C.S.Deva Kumar