The High Court at Madras dismissed a suit for trademark infringement for default/non-prosecution as the plaintiff filed a memo stating they had no instructions to proceed.
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: 21.08.2018
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
C.S.No.777 of 2008
and A.Nos.5980 of 2008
and A.Nos.3650 and 3651 and 2695 of 2009
and O.A.Nos.904 and 905 of 2008
The Society of Certified Public Acountants
No.6E, VI Floor
Eldorado Building, 112
Nungambakkam High Road
Chennai – 600 034
Represented by its law officer and
Authorized signatory
Mr.M.S.Rao .. Plaintiff
Vs.
1.New Horizons Educational Institute Pvt. Ltd
301-A, City Point, Dhole Patil Road
Pune.
2.New Horizons Educational Institute Pvt. Ltd
No.10, College Road, Park Circle, 1 st Floor
Chennai – 600 006. .. Defendants
This Civil Suit is preferred, under Order IV Rule 1 of O.S. Rules read
with Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C. Praying
a) to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their servants or agents or anyone claiming through them, from in any manner infringing the plaintiff registered trademark 'CpA' by using
2
the offending trade mark 'CPA' or any other mark or marks which are in any way identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs well established and registered trade mark 'CPA'';
b) to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their servants or agents or anyone claiming through them, from in any manner passing off their services by using the offending trade mark 'CPA' as and for the celebrated services rendered by using the well established and registered trade mark 'CPA' either by rendering services or offering service or in any manner advertising the same;
c) to direct the defendants to render a true and faithful accounts of the profits earned by them through rendering services by using the offending trademark 'CPA' and directing the payment of such profits to the plaintiff for the passing off committed by the defendants;
d) direct the defendants to surrender to the plaintiff the entire stock of unused labels, bill books, publications instructional materials, computer software, hard disks, electronic and magnetic storage date etc., bearing the offending trade mark 'CPA' together with the blocks and dyes for destruction; and
e) direct the defendants to pay to the plaintiff the cost of the suit
For Plaintiff : Ms.Durga V. Bhatt
For Defendants : Ms.Bhuvaneswari
Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings of this Commercial Division dated 30.07.2018, which reads as follows:
3
'The defendant is directed to file a memo along with order copy of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board since an order had been passed, according tot he defendant, in their favour.
2.For filing such memo along with the order copy, call the matter once again on 21.08.2018.
3.Post the suit under the caption 'for dismissal'.'
defendants has placed before this Commercial Division an order of the 'Intellectual Property Appellate Board' ('IPAB' for brevity) dated 11.11.2011 in ORA/14-17/2010/TM/CH, wherein and whereby the rectification
application moved by the defendants has been allowed.
plaintiff and Ms.Bhuvaneshwari, learned counsel representing the counsel on
record for defendants are before this Commercial Division.
alleged infringement of plaintiff's trade mark (which has since been rectified). Therefore, this is a commercial dispute within the meaning of sub-clause (xvii) of Section 2(1)(c) of 'The Commercial Courts Act, 2015'
4
('said Act' for brevity). Sub-clause (xvii) of Section 2(1)(c) of the said Act reads as follows: 'intellectual property rights relating to registered and unregistered trademarks, copyright, patent, design, domain names, geographical indications and semi-conductor integrated circuits'.
to a trademark, 'specified value' is of no consequence for determining jurisdiction in the light of Section 134(1) of the 'Trademarks Act, 1999' ('TM Act' for brevity) is their say. After perusing the plaint, I am satisfied that the submission in this regard deserves to be accepted. This Commercial Division will exercise jurisdiction over this suit under first proviso to Section
7 of the said Act.
'MEMO FILED BY THE COUNSEL ON RECORD FOR PLAINTIFF'
The counsel on record for plaintiff above named submits as follows:
We, the counsel on record for the plaintiff hereby submits
5
that we have no instructions from the plaintiff in the above
matter.
It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased
to take the same on record and thus render justice.
Dated at Chennai on this the 21st Day of August 2018
(s/d)
Counsel on record for plaintiff.'
9. In the light of the narrative supra, this suit is dismissed for
default/non-prosecution. Consequently, all applications are closed. No
order as to costs.
21.08.2018
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
Index : Yes/No
vsm
6
M.SUNDAR, J.
vsm
C.S.No.777 of 2008
21.08.2018
New Horizons Educational Institute Pvt. Ltd
M. Sundar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
