Disposed

V.S.Gadigachallam v. a.Nagaraj

Madras HC11 Oct 2018CS/752/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Commercial Division of the Madras High Court considered jurisdiction over a suit for trademark infringement and copyright violations. It held that the Commercial Division had jurisdiction as a commercial dispute under section 7 of the Commercial Courts Act, noting section 134 of the Trade Marks Act and section 62 of the Copyright Act mandate a District Court or higher.

What did the court decide?

The court intended to exercise jurisdiction and directed the Registry to list the matter for settlement reporting on 23.08.2018.

V.S.Gadigachallam Vs a.Nagaraj — Intellectual Property | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶6

C.S.No.752 of 2016

¶7

V.S.Gadigachallam trading as V.S.G Lungi Company No.45, Ramaswamy Street, Manndy, Chennai 600 001

¶8

: Plaintiff Vs 1. A.Nagaraj Trading as M/s.Maruthi Tex Rajeev Nagar Opposite to water tank Anaikattu Road Surampatti Valasu Erode 638009 2. Gokul Offset Ramnad Agency Opposite Perumal Kovil Veethi Erode 638 003 : Defendants

¶9

Civil suit praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order grant a judgement and decree on the following terms

¶10

a. A permanent injunction restraining the defendants, themselves, its proprietor/directors/partners as the case may be, successors-in-business, servants, agents, distributors, dealers, stockists, shop keepers, wholesalers, retailers, representatives, assigns and all other persons claiming through or under them from https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

infringing the registered trademarks/labels VSG & NANDU of

¶12

¶13

the plaintiff by manufacturing, selling and /or

¶14

distributing lungies and other textile goods under identical marks VSG & NANDU or any other similar or identical mark and in any other manner whatsoever;

¶15

b. a permanent injunction restraining the defendants,

¶16

themselves, its proprietor/directors/partners as the case may be, successors-in-business, servants, agents, distributors, dealers, stockists, shop keepers, wholesalers, retailers, representatives, assigns and all other persons claiming through or under them from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale and/or distributing lungies and other textile goods which would amount to passing off their goods as and for the goods of the plaintiff or as being in some way connected with the plaintiff by using the identical marks VSG & NANDU or any other similar or identical mark and artistic work and in any other manner whatsoever.

¶17

c. a permanent injunction restraining the defendants,

¶18

¶19

other persons claiming through or under them from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale and/or

¶20

distributing lungies and other textile goods from https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

committing acts of copyright infringement by ditto copying

¶22

¶23

the plaintiff's copyright in the artistic works VSG & NANDU

¶24

labels by use of identical VSG & NANDU labels, colour scheme, get up and placement of features or any other label similar or identical thereto and in any other manner whatsoever.

¶25

d. the defendants be ordered to surrender to the

¶26

plaintiff for destruction all goods viz., lungies, blocks, dyes, prints, labels, cartons, screen prints, cylinders and other materials and goods containing the trademarks VSG & NANDU or any other mark similar to plaintiff's registered trademarks and labels VSG & NANDU.

¶27

e. the defendants be ordered to pay to the plaintiff a

¶28

sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages for committing acts of infringement of trademark, infringement of copyright and passing off;

¶29

f. a preliminary decree be passed in favour of the

¶30

plaintiff directing the defendants to render true and faithful account of profits earned by them by use of trademarks VSG & NANDU for lungies and other textile goods,

¶31

which is identical to the plaintiff's registered trademarks and labels VSG & NANDU and final decree be passed in favour to have been made by the defendants after the latter has rendered accounts;

¶32

g. for entire costs of the suit.

¶33

This Civil Suit coming on this day before this court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶34

for hearing the court made the following order:

¶35

¶36

This suit is listed under the caption 'TO DETERMINE JURISDICTION' today.

¶37

2 Mr.Karthik, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for plaintiff is before this Commercial Division. Mr.R.Sathish Kumar, learned counsel on record for both defendants is before this Commercial Division.

¶38

3 I heard both learned counsel regarding jurisdiction of this Commercial Division qua this suit.

¶39

4 Referring to the plaint, both learned counsel made

¶40

a common submission jointly in unison that this suit pertains to alleged infringement of registered trade marks, copyright and passing off. Therefore, this suit pertains to intellectual property rights relating to registered trade marks and copyright which fall under sub-clause (xvii) of section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

¶41

5 As the suit pertains to registered trade marks and copyright, the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Copyright Act, 1957 come into play. In the light of Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957, such suits have been stipulated by respective acts to

¶42

lie in a Court not inferior to a District Court. The lis being commercial dispute, this Commercial Division will get jurisdiction under first proviso to section 7 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as there is no dispute or disagreement between counsel that this suit relates to a commercial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

¶43

6 In the light of the aforesaid section 134 of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957, 'specified value' is of no consequence and this suit

¶44

¶45

qualifies under first proviso to section 7, as mentioned supra.

¶46

7 In the light of the narrative supra, this Commercial Division expresses its intention to exercise jurisdiction over the suit under first proviso to section 7 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

¶47

9 Be that as it may, both learned counsel submit that possibility of settlement is being explored. Registry is directed to list the matter under the caption 'For Reporting Settlement' on 23.08.2018.

¶48

Sd/.M.S.J 09.08.2018

¶49

//Certified to be a true copy// Dated this the th day of 2018. KY/16.08.2018 COURT OFFICER

¶50

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

¶51

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

V.S.Gadigachallam v. a.Nagaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.S.Gadigachallam v. a.Nagaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Orient Hardware and Tools Vs Alisager Siawala

M/S.Asianet Communications Ltd. Vs Mr.S.Parthasarathy

Vs

Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Vs Pegasus Farmaco India (P) Ltd.

Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd., Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

vennila clothin company Vs m/s.arrs silks