The Court recorded a compromise between the parties in a suit for trademark infringement and passing-off. A compromise decree was passed ordering the defendant to modify its name and logo per the terms of the agreed memorandum.
A compromise decree was passed in terms of the submitted Memo of Compromise dated 29.11.2018.
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: 03.12.2018
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
C.S.No.980 of 2017 and O.A.Nos.1279 and 1280 of 2017
M/s.Adyar Ananda Bhavan Sweets and Snacks represented by its Partner Mr.K.T.Venkatesan Muthulakshmi Bhavan, No.9, M.G.Road, Shastri Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. ..Plaintiff Vs. Sai Ananda Bhavan KPN Complex, Chennai High Way, Near Umarani Hospital, Krishnagiri – 635 001. .. Defendant
This Civil Suit is preferred, under Order IV Rule 1 O.S. Rules and Order VII Rule 1 CPC, read with Sections 134 & 135 of The Trade Marks Act, 1999, praying to
a) Declare that the Defendant is infringing the Plaintiff's Registered Trademark Number:1225607 in respect of its restaurant business carried under the name 'Adyar Ananda Bhavan'.
b) grant a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, their men, agents, or persons, acting on their behalf, from in any manner infringing the Plaintiff's right in trademark bearing No: 1225607 in respect of its business under the name 'Adyar Ananda Bhavan' by running a restaurant with identical name and logo or in any manner similar name and logo to that of the Plaintiff;
2
c) grant a permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants, its men, agents and servants from in any manner passing off its business as that of the Plaintiff's by using the name 'Adyar Ananda Bhavan' with or without a similar logo, or by any other identical name or deceptively similar name as that of the Plaintiff, with or without any deceptively similar or similar logo as that of the Plaintiff in its registered mark bearing no.1225607 or any of the other names and logos for which registration has been applied for by the Plaintiff;
d) Direct the Defendants to pay the costs of the suit;
e) Pass such further or other reliefs as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice. For Plaintiff : Mr. K.Harishankar For Defendant : Mr.V.Regunathan JUDGMENT There is a sole plaintiff and a lone defendant in the instant suit.
Mr.V.Regunathan, learned counsel on record for sole defendant are before this Commercial Division.
the suit amicably amongst themselves and have reduced the same to writing
by way of a 'Memo of Compromise dated 29.11.2018' ( hereinafter referred
http://www.judis.nic.in to as 'said MOC' for brevity) which has been placed before me.
3
well as the lone defendant and their respective counsel.
whom this Commercial Division is informed is Zonal Manager in plaintiff partnership firm, is before this Commercial Division. A generic authorization dated 23.10.2018, signed by a partner of the plaintiff firm, who has verified/signed the plaint and the self attested photo copy of photo identity card of Mr.R.Saravana, (Voter identity card) have been placed before this Commercial Division.
firm for over 13 years now, he has understood the terms of said MOC, he has authority to represent plaintiff firm and requests that a compromise decree may please be passed in terms of said MOC.
representing the sole defendant partnership firm. In this regard, learned
4
counsel undertakes to furnish a photo copy of the partnership deed of sole defendant to learned counsel for plaintiff within seven working days from today.
for recording said MOC is dispensed with.
'MEMO OF COMPROMISE FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT
The Plaintiff and Defendant above named submit as follows:
1.The Plaintiff has instituted this civil suit bearing C.S.No.980 of 2017 seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the Defendant is infringing the Plaintiff's registered Trademark and consequential injunctions restraining infringement of Trademark and passing-off and for other reliefs. O.A.No.1279 of 2017, is filed seeking interim injunction restraining the
5
Respondent from infringing the Applicant/Plaintiff's Trademark bearing registration no.1225607 and O.A.No.1280 of 2017 is for interim injunction restraining the Respondent/Defendant from passing off using the Plaintiff's mark.
2.The Defendant has filed his Common Counter Affidavit in O.A.Nos.1279 & 1280/2017 denying the Plaintiff's allegations of infringement. However, the Defendant has approached the Plaintiff to resolve the matter amicably by way of this Memo of Compromise, to which the Plaintiff has agreed. The Defendant acknowledges and consents to be bound by the terms and conditions contained in this Memo of Compromise. The parties have now settled the disputes in the present suit on the terms contained hereinafter:
ii. The Defendant shall not use any other marks
deceptively similar to the above said trademarks as part of their restaurant name or in any of their business activities including in business promotion materials, or in any form of advertisement, business cards, calendars, websites, letter pad, stationeries, signboards, name boards outside the Defendant's restaurant or in any other documents or in any other
6
media.
sd/- sd/-
Plaintiff Defendant
sd/- sd/-
Counsel for Plaintiff Counsel for Defendant
7
costs. Consequently, all connected interlocutory applications are closed.
03.12.2018 Speaking order/Non-Speaking Order
Index : Yes/No
vsm/mp
8
M.SUNDAR, J.
vsm/mp
C.S.No.980 of 2017 and
O.A.Nos.1279 and 1280 of 2017
03.12.2018
Sai Ananda Bhavan KPN Complex
M. Sundar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
