This is a default dismissal of a civil suit filed for trademark infringement and passing off due to the plaintiff's non-appearance at two consecutive hearings. Connected applications were also closed.
The civil suit was dismissed for default. Connected applications were closed. No order as to costs.
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.
C.S.No.15 of 2011 and Application Nos.144, 29, 30, 31, 32 & 33 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated:02.12.2019
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN
Civil Suit No.15 of 2011 and Application Nos.144, 29, 30, 31, 32 & 33 of 2011 Jai Rajendra Impex Private Limited, Represented by Mr.Dilip Kumar Jain, of Plot 60, CIE, Gandhinagar, IDA, Hyderabad 500 037. .. Plaintiff /versus/ 1.Shambhu Nath & Brothers 2.Shambhu nath Jaiswal 3.Ram Dhin Jaiswal
4.Muthu Enterprises, 34, Narayana Mudali Street, Chennai 600 079.
5.Vishal Electricals, Station Road, Patna 800 001. .. Defendants
1/5
C.S.No.15 of 2011 and Application Nos.144, 29, 30, 31, 32 & 33 of 2011
Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of O.S. Rules read with Sections 27,29,134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 praying to grant:(a)a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants their men, servants, dealers, agents, employees and assigns from infringing the plaintiff's registered trade mark “TOOFAN” by manufacturing and seeling and/or otherwise dealing in products under the mark “TOOFAN” or any other material or marks which is deceptively similar to and/or identical with and/or a fraudulent imitation of the plaintiff's said registered trade mark “TOOFAN”, (b)a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants their men, servants, dealers, agents, employees and assigns from infringing the copyright subsisting in the artistic style of representation of the trade mark “TOOFAN” as shown in plaint document No.2, hereto by representing the impugned mark “TOOFAN” in the same stylized representation or by adopting any other style of representation which is deceptively similar to and/or identical with and/or a fraudulent imittion of the plaintiff's said style of representation; (c)a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants their men, servants, dealers, agents, employees and assigns from passing off their goods i.e electric fans by using the trademark “TOOFAN” or any other mark which is identical and/or deceptively similar both phonetically and/or structurally to the plaintiff's trade mark “TOOFAN”; (d)a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants their men, servants, dealers, agents, employees and assigns from marketing selling or
2/5
C.S.No.15 of 2011 and Application Nos.144, 29, 30, 31, 32 & 33 of 2011
offering to seel or market goods or merchandise including electric fans using mark “TOOFAN” or any other word and/or mark either phonetically and/or structually similar to the registered trade mark of the plaintiff in any manner whatsoever;(e) a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants their men, servants, dealers, agents, employees and assigns from passing of its products as that of the plaintiff by selling and/or marketing and/or dealing its products in any form with the style of representation of the plaintiff's “TOOFAN” mark which is identical with and/or deceptively similar to and/or a fraudulent imitation of the plaintiff's trade mark “TOOFAN” and/or the said style of representation of the plaintiff'; (f)a decree for amounts earned by the defendants from the wrongful use of the mark “TOOFAN” and/or the style of representation of the same and a decree for such in favour of the plaintiff against the defendans as may be found due and payable on taking accounts; (g) a decree for delivery up and destruction upon oath of all materials, documents, publicity materials, bills and all other documens and/or papers bearing the mark “TOOFAN” and/or the style of representation of the same, which is deceptively similar and/or phonetically and structurally similar and/or identical with the plaintiff's trade mark “TOOFAN” and/or the stylised representation of the same;(h)an enquiry into the loss and damage suffered by the plaintiff for the wrongful acts and conduct of the dfendants and decree against the defendants for such sum as found due on such enquiry; and (j) for costs of the suit.
3/5
C.S.No.15 of 2011 and Application Nos.144, 29, 30, 31, 32 & 33 of 2011
For Plaintiff :No appearance For Defendants :No appearance
J U D G M E N T
There is no representation for the plaintiff for two consecutive hearings. Hence, this Civil Suit is dismissed for default. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected Applications are closed.
02.12.2019 Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no Speaking order/non speaking order ari
4/5
C.S.No.15 of 2011 and Application Nos.144, 29, 30, 31, 32 & 33 of 2011
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
ari
C.S.No.15 of 2011
and
Application Nos.144, 29, 30, 31,
32 & 33 of 2011
02.12.2019
5/5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a civil suit filed for trademark infringement and passing off should proceed when the plaintiff has no representation.
What is the consequence of default on the plaintiff's side in a trademark suit.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jai Rajendra Impex Private Limited
Shambhu Nath & Brothers
Shambhu nath Jaiswal
Ram Dhin Jaiswal
Muthu Enterprises
Vishal Electricals
G. Jayachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
