Dismissed

Psg Industrial Institute ( Registeres Trust) v. Gopal Prasad Gupta

Madras HC19 Aug 2019CS/246/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment decrees a civil suit in the Commercial Courts Division. The plaintiff sought injunctions and damages for trademark infringement. The defendants filed an affidavit admitting infringement, vacating use of the mark 'PSG', and agreeing to the injunction prayers. The court accepted this, decreed the suit for the injunctions, and the connected Original Applications. Despite objections, the

What did the court decide?

Decree passed on prayers 34(a), (b), and (c) for permanent injunction based on defendants' affidavit. Suit dismissed on prayers 34(d) and (e) regarding damages as no evidence was tendered. Costs of Rs

Psg Industrial Institute ( Registeres Trust) Vs Gopal… — Intellectual Property | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.246 of 2019 and O.A.Nos.366, 367 & 368 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 19.08.2019

¶4

Coram

¶5

The Honourable Mr.Justice KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶6

C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.246 of 2019
and
O.A.Nos.366, 367 & 368 of 2019
PSG Industrial Institute (Registered Trust)
Rep by its Deputy Manager – Sales Mr.N.Ravi
having registered office at
Avinashi Road,
Peelamedu,
Coimbatore Distroct – 641 004.
Having sales office at
No. 4/18 9 th Lane, Shastri Nagar,
Adayar, Chennai - 600 020. ...Plaintiff
Versus
1.Gopal Prasad Gupta
Trading as Rekha Machinery (Trader)
Tekarai Road
Gaya – 823 001
Gaya district
Bihar.
1/10

¶7

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶8

C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.246 of 2019 and O.A.Nos.366, 367 & 368 of 2019

¶9

2.Gopal Prasad Gupta Trading as Rekha Machinery (Trader) No.7, Aarasuri Society, Nr. Bhavsar Hostel, New Vadaj, Ahmedabad – 380 013 Gujarat.

¶10

3.Rushabh Industries, (Pump Manufacturer) Plot 137, Road No. 20, Odhav G.I.D.C Odhav, Ahmedabad – 382 415 Gujarat.

¶11

...Defendants

¶12

This Civil Suit is filed under Order IV, Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules and Order VII, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Sections 27, 28, 29, 134 & 135 of the Trade Mark Act, 1999, and Section 7 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, No.4 of 2016, to grant

¶13

a) a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1, 2 and 3 by themselves, their proprietor/partners/directors as the case may be, heirs, legal representatives, successors-in-business, assigns, servants, agents, 2/10

¶14

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶15

C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.246 of 2019 and O.A.Nos.366, 367 & 368 of 2019

¶16

distributors, retailers, stockiest or any one claiming through them from in any manner infringing the plaintiff's registered trademark PSG or any other mark/name identical or deceptively similar thereto or in any other manner whatsoever;

¶17

b) a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1, 2 and 3 by themselves, their proprietor/partners/directors as the case may be, heirs, legal representatives, successors-in-business, assigns, servants, agents, distributors, retailers, stockiest or any one claiming through them from in any manner passing off or enabling others to pass off their services namely sales and marketing of motors, pumps, submersible pumps, machine tools as and for the plaintiffs' products namely sales and marketing of hardware, and tools by use of the offending mark PSG per se or with any device/image as a trademark, trading style or in any other manner whatsoever;

¶18

c) a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1, 2 & 3 by themselves, their proprietor/partners/directors as the case may be, heirs, legal representatives, successors-in-business, assigns, servants, agents, distributors, retailers, stockiest or any one claiming through them from in any manner infringing the plaintiff's registered copyright rest with logo containing the letters PSG or any other logo/label identical or

¶19

3/10

¶20

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶21

C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.246 of 2019 and O.A.Nos.366, 367 & 368 of 2019

¶22

deceptively similar thereto or in any other manner whatsoever;

¶23

d) The defendants 1, 2 & 3 be ordered to surrender to plaintiff for the purpose of destruction a grounds including containers, cartoons, packs, labels, prints, blocks, dyes, plates, moulds and other material bearing the mark/name PSG which is identical to the plaintiffs registered trademark PSG;

¶24

e) The defendants 1, 2 and 3 be directed to pay to the plaintiffs as compensatory and punitive a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- for the infringement activities and acts of passing off committed by them;

¶25

f) for costs of he suits.

¶26

For Plaintiff : Mr.A.K.Rajaraman For Defendants : Mr.K.Prem Chandar for Mr.M.S.Bharath for D1 and D2 M/s.E.Santhanalakshmi for D3 J U D G M E N T

¶27

The present Civil Suit has been filed by the plaintiff, seeking for

¶28

the relief, as stated in the prayer portion of this judgement.

¶29

4/10

¶30

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶31

C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.246 of 2019 and O.A.Nos.366, 367 & 368 of 2019

¶32

The learned counsel appearing for the defendants 1 and 2

¶33

filed the an affidavit, dated 23^rd July, 2019, wherein, it is stated as follows:

¶34

“1. I am the constituted Attorney and the son of

¶35

Mr. Gopal Prasad Gupta, who is the proprietor of the 1^st and 2^nd Defendant herein. I am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and I am competent to swear this affidavit on behalf of 1^st and 2^nd defendant.

¶36

2. I submit that upon knowledge of the order of interim injunction dated 05^th April 2019 passed by this Hon'ble Court against the defendants, the 1^st and 2^nd defendant have ceased all forms of use of the mark 'PSG' and I hereby confirm that they are no longer using the said trademark in any manner.

¶37

3. Further, I also humbly submit that defendants 1 and 2 will not at any point of time in the future, use the mark 'PSG' in any manner relating to the manufacture and/or sale of pumps. Therefore, the

¶38

5/10

¶39

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶40

C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.246 of 2019 and O.A.Nos.366, 367 & 368 of 2019

¶41

Defendants 1 and 2 hereby submit to the decree of this Hon'ble Court with regard to the prayers 34 (a), (b) and (c) of the plaint filed in the present proceeding.

¶42

4. I state that we are not award that the mark PSG is a registered trademark of the plaintiff and upon gaining knowledge that the mark is registered and after this Court passing ex-parte order, we have stopped using the mark PSG. Therefore, we hereby humbly pray that no cost be imposed on us.

¶43

5. In light of the above confirmation given on behalf of the Defendants 1 and 2, it is most humbly prayed that this affidavit be taken on record and appropriate orders may be passed with no cost or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case and thereby render justice.”

¶44

2 .1 By referring to the aforesaid affidavit, the learned counsel

¶45

appearing for the defendants submitted that they are no longer using the

¶46

6/10

¶47

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶48

C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.246 of 2019 and O.A.Nos.366, 367 & 368 of 2019

¶49

word 'PSG' in respect of their product, viz. Pumps, and further, the counsel submitted that they are not going to pursue the application filed for registration of their trademark PSG, which is pending before the Trademark Registry.

¶50

2.2 Therefore, the learned counsel contended that the defendants

¶51

1 and 2 would submit to the decree of this Court with regard to prayers 34 (a) (b) and (c), however, insofar as prayer 34 (d) (e) viz., with regard to claim for compensatory and punitive damages at Rs.25,00,000/- are concerned, learned counsel raised strong objection. Similarly, with regard prayer 34 (f), viz., cost of the suit, the learned prays this Court not to impose cost on them.

¶52

2.3 Further, the learned counsel for the defendants submitted his

¶53

client (defendants) undertakes not to infringe the word 'PSG' and also would not copy the device along with tag line.

¶54

7/10

¶55

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶56

C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.246 of 2019 and O.A.Nos.366, 367 & 368 of 2019

¶57

3. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that

¶58

they are agreable to decree the suit, insofar as prayer No.34 (a) (b) and (c) are concerned, in terms of the affidavit filed by the defendants 1 and

¶59

However, he insists to impose a minimum costs.

¶60

4 . Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, and also

¶61

taking into consideration the affidavit filed by the defendants 1 and 2, dated 23.07.2019, this Court is inclined to decree the suit insofar as prayer No.34 (a) (b) and (c) are concerned, in terms of the aforesaid affidavit. Accordingly, the suit is decreed in terms of the affidavit.

¶62

However, with regard to the imposition of cost is concerned, though the learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 raised objection, this Court

¶63

impose a cost of Rs.25,000/- and the same shall be paid on or before 14.10.2019 to the plaintiff. In case, if the defendants violates any of the

¶64

terms stated in the affidavit filed by them and continues to infringe the plaintiff's trademark, the defendants shall pay the cost of Rs.10,00,000/and the plaintiff is at liberty to approach this Court.

¶65

8/10

¶66

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶67

C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.246 of 2019 and O.A.Nos.366, 367 & 368 of 2019

¶68

5. In the result, the suit is decreed as indicated above.

¶69

Consequently, connected Original Applications are closed.

¶70

19.08.2019
Index : Yes/No
rst

¶71

9/10

¶72

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶73

C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.246 of 2019 and O.A.Nos.366, 367 & 368 of 2019

¶74

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J., rst

¶75

C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.246 of 2019
and
O.A.Nos.366, 367 & 368 of 2019
19.08.2019

¶76

10/10

¶77

http://www.judis.nic.in

Psg Industrial Institute ( Registeres Trust) v. Gopal Prasad Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Psg Industrial Institute ( Registeres Trust) v. Gopal Prasad Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Madhesh Vs Kasuhik Movies

Eagle Flask Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bonjour International

S.Sudhakar Vs Sree Sai Raama Oil Mill

Academy for Quality Vs Mrs. Megha Goswami & 4 Others

Mr. A.D. Padmasingh Isaac Vs Annai Masala Food Products

Amrutanjan Health Care Ltd. Vs Baxom Healthcare Pvt.Ltd