Disposed

M/s.Sri Sainath Enterprises v. Trend In Vogue Private Ltd.

Madras HC3 Jul 2017OA/322/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court disposed of two connected original applications filed in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The dispute arose from a franchise agreement. Since the franchisee consented to exit the premises, the court held the dispute resolved and closed both applications without参考 specific precedents.

What did the court decide?

Both O.A.No.322 of 2017 and O.A.No.455 of 2017 are closed; parties to bear their own costs.

M/s.Sri Sainath Enterprises Vs Trend In Vogue Private Ltd. — Arbitration | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

¶4

MONDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2017

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶6

O.A. No.322 of 2017 and O.A.No.455 of 2017

¶7

In the matter of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

¶8

and

¶9

In the matter of disputes between Sri Sainath Enterprises and Trends In Vogue Private Limited under Franchise Agreement dated 20.02.2012

¶10

M/s.Sri Sainath Enterprises, Rep. by its Proprietrix, Ms.D.Prabha, having its office at Old No.3, New No.5, Ashok Nagar Main Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai-600 024 and parlour at New No.23, Old No.35, 10^th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai-600 083.

¶11

... Applicant/Applicant -Versus-

¶12

Trend in Vogue Private Limited, having its Registered office at No.12, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet, Chennai-600 018.

¶13

... Respondent/Respondent

¶14

O.A.No.322 of 2017:

¶15

Original Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant an order of an interim injunction restraining the respondent, its officers, employees and/or agents from in any manner disturbing or interfering with the operations of Green Trends Beauty Services franchisee business carried on by the Applicant at New No.23, Old No.35, 10^th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai-600 083 and order to continue to provide all necessary support including supply of material, services, training and all other supports in terms of the Agreement dated 20.02.2012.

¶16

¶17

O.A.No.455 of 2017:

¶18

Trend in Vogue Private Limited, Represented by its authorized, Signatory R.Ramachandra, Registered office at No.12, First Floor, ''Cavin Ville'' Cenotaph Road,Teynampet, Chennai-600 018. ...Applicant

¶19

-Vs-

¶20

M/s.Sri Sainath Enterprises, Rep. by its Proprietrix, Ms.D.Prabha, New No.23, Old No.35, 10^th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai-600 083. ...Respondent

¶21

Original Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to make an order of interim injunction restraining the respondent her men, agent servants or any person claiming under her from using, displaying circulating, associating with and publishing the brand name and registered Trademark ''Green Trends'' and ''Green trends Family Saloon'' or using any part or any other deceptively or phonetically resembling Trade mark or brand name or using any colour combination, get-up and layout identical to applicants trade marked at her business premises situated at New No23, Old No.35, 10^th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai-600 003, or any other place pending disposal of Arbitration proceedings and till enforcement of the Arbitral Award that may be passed against the respondent and to pass such further orders that this Hon'ble court my deem fit in the circumstances of the case.

¶22

This Original Application coming on this day before this court for hearing the court made the following order:

¶23

The above connected applications are disposed of by means of this common order.

¶24

Applicant in O.A.No.455 of 2017 is M/s.Trends in Vogue Pvt Ltd., a company incorporated to carry on the

¶25

¶26

business of Beauty Services under the brand name 'Green Trends'.

¶27

Applicant in O.A.No.322 of 2017 is Sri Sainath Enterprises, a Proprietory Concern engaged in the business of running Beauty Parlours, Salons, SPAs etc., under the name and style of 'Green Trends'.

¶28

The Applicant in O.A.No.322 of 2017 is the registered owner of the trade mark 'Green Trends Family Saloon' under registration No.1672576 in clause 42 and holds certificate of Registration issued by the Trade Mark Registry dated 2.1.2014 effective 4.4.2008. The applicant in O.A.No.455 of 2017 has been exclusively using the brand/trade name 'Green Trends' since 1.10.2007.

¶29

The respondent was appointed, under Franchisee Agreement dated 20.2.2012, to use the Trade Name 'Green Trends' and 'Green Trends Family Salon' on a non exclusive basis. The tenure of the Franchisee Agreement, as set out in clause 3 thereof, is for an initial period of five years. Clause 4, dealing with renewal, provides for a further extension of five years.

¶30

O.A.No.322 of 2017 has been filed by the respondent

¶31

in O.A.No.455 of 2017, the Franchise holder, raising a dispute on the tenure of the agreement. The Franchisee would state that though, admittedly the agreement was executed on 20.2.2012, the effective date would be the date when the salon actually become functional, which

¶32

¶33

according to her is 30.6.2012. An injunction was sought against the respondent, the owner of the Mark, restraining her from interfering with the operations of the Franchisee at Anna Nagar, Chennai. This Court initially ordered a status quo of proceedings that is being extended from time to time.

¶34

On 7.6.2017, upon hearing the submissions of both parties, this Court was of the view that the scope of the dispute was very narrow. Infact, even according to the franchisee, the agreement is to be in force only till 30.06.2017 . In so far as the applicant in O.A.No.322 of 2017 only sought the right to continue to run and manage the Franchise till 30.6.2017 and not beyond, the matter was listed on 3.7.2017 to enable the franchisee, by consent, to exit the premises.

¶35

Today, 03.07.2017, the Franchisee would confirm that she is in the process of taking all steps to exit the premises at New No.23, Old No.35, 10^th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai 600 083. Her statement is recorded.

¶36

The contentions of the applicant in A.No.455 of 2017 are wider in scope, when compared with O.A.No.322 of 2017 and raise various averments and allegations against the Franchisee with respect to infringement and abuse of intellectual property. However, in view of the exit of the Franchisee from the premises, the dispute as between the parties will stand resolved. I do not think it necessary, in the aforesaid circumstances, to refer to the various

¶37

¶38

arguments advanced.

¶39

Both applications are closed and the parties are

¶40

left to bear their own costs.

¶41

sd/-A.S.M.J 03.07.2017

¶42

//Certified to be a true copy// Dated this the day of 2016.

¶43

EM/31.08.2017 COURT OFFICER

¶44

From 25.09.2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Order/Judgment Decree in this format.

M/s.Sri Sainath Enterprises v. Trend In Vogue Private Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Sri Sainath Enterprises v. Trend In Vogue Private Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

India Yamaha Motor Private Vs Mr.S.Sivasundar

Ptc Inc. (formerly Parametric Vs Ragavendra M

Sundaram Finance Limited Vs Dinesh Podey

M/s.Urc Construction (P) Ltd. Vs M/s.Empee Sugars and Chemicals

M/s.Cheyyar C-operative Sugar Vs The Regional Manager

Microsoft Coporation Vs Mr.Ramaswamy Gnanasundaram