Dismissed

M/S.Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v. M/S.Chennai Shri Sangeetha

Madras HC5 Aug 2019CS/290/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a suit for trademark infringement and injunction regarding the marks 'SANGEETHA' and 'CHENNAI SHRI SANGEETHA', the High Court of Judicature at Madras decreed the suit based on a joint compromise memo filed by the parties on 31.07.2019, closing the connected application.

What did the court decide?

The suit is decreed in terms of the Joint Memo of Compromise dated 31.07.2019, and the connected application is closed.

M/S.Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP Vs… — Intellectual Property | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

C.S.(comm)No.290 of 2019 and O.A.No.457 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 05.08.2019

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶6

C.S. (comm)No.290 of 2019 and O.A.No.457 of 2019

¶7

M/s.Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP Represented by its Designated Partners: 1.Mr.P.Rajagopal 2.Mr.P.Suresh No.7 Gandhi Nagar, 1^st Main Road, 4^th Floor, Adyar, Chennai-600 020 ... Plaintiff Vs. M/s.Chennai Shri Sangeetha Represented by its Managing Partner, No.3/302, Trichy-Chennai National Highway, Inam Samayapuram Toll Plaza, Manachanallur, Trichy-621 216 ... Defendant

¶8

Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of O.S. Rules and Order VII Rule 1 of CPC Read with sections 27, 134 and 135 of the Trademarks Act 1999 & Proviso 1 of Section 7 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 praying for:

¶9

(a) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their legal representatives, their successors in business, assigns, franchisees, servants or agents operating the restaurant business by infringing the

¶10

1/4

¶11

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶12

C.S.(comm)No.290 of 2019 and O.A.No.457 of 2019

¶13

plaintiffs trademark "SANGEETHA", SVR SANGEETHA, SVR SANGEETHA VEG. RESTAURANT, and SANGEETHA (with a VEENA MARK) or by use of confusingly similar or any other mark deceptively and identically similar to the Plaintiffs registered trademark SANGEETHA or in any other manner whatsoever;

¶14

(b) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their legal representatives, their successors in business, assigns, franchisees, servants or agents operating a restaurant business by the name "CHENNAI SHRI" agents operating a restaurant business by the name "CHENNAI SHRI SANGEETHA" pure veg. and from committing the act of passing off and enabling others in passing off the restaurant business in the deceptively similar mark which is identical to the plaintiff's trademark in any manner whatsoever;

¶15

(c) the defendant be ordered to surrender to the plaintiff for destruction of all the packing containers, card board boxes, packing materials, covers and carry bags, screen prints, bills, sign boards, billing software, menu cards, and any other material in their possession bearing mark "CHENNAI SHRI SANGEETHA" which i identical to the plaintiffs mark SANGEETHA.

¶16

(d) the defendant be ordered to pay to the Plaintiffs a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs) as damages for their wrongful and illegal act by

¶17

2/4

¶18

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶19

C.S.(comm)No.290 of 2019 and O.A.No.457 of 2019

¶20

use of the trademark SANGEETHA;

¶21

¶22

(d) for such further and other reliefs as this Court

¶23

may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶24

For Plaintiff : Mr.L.Rajasekar For Defendant : Mr.Dominic S.David J U D G M E N T When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned

¶25

counsel appearing on either side submitted that the dispute between the parties has been settled and a Joint compromise Memo dated 31.07.2019 to that effect has been filed on behalf

¶26

of both the parties. The said Memo has been duly signed by

¶27

both the parties and attested by their respective counsels.

¶28

The learned counsel appearing on either side

¶29

submitted that the suit may be decreed in terms of Memo of

¶30

Compromise.

¶31

3/4

¶32

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶33

C.S.(comm)No.290 of 2019 and O.A.No.457 of 2019

¶34

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY,J.

¶35

arr

¶36

Recording the Joint Memo of Compromise dated
31.07.2019 this suit is decreed in terms of Joint Memo of
Compromise. The Joint Memo of Compromise shall form part of
the decree. Consequently, connected Application stands
closed.
05.08.2019
arr
C.S. (comm)No.290 of 2019
and
O.A.No.457 of 2019

¶37

4/4

¶38

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶39

C.S.(comm)No.290 of 2019 and O.A.No.457 of 2019

¶40

05.08.2019
05.08.2019

¶41

5/4

¶42

http://www.judis.nic.in

M/S.Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v. M/S.Chennai Shri Sangeetha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v. M/S.Chennai Shri Sangeetha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Pitchamuthu Vs Sakthi

Sree Devi Corporation Vs Mrs v.Sagunthala

K.Venkateswara Rao Vs Kvr English Coachin Centre

Sree Devi Video Corporation Rep.by Its Director Ghanshyam Hemdev Vs R.v.Mahalingam Prop.Purnima Shankar Enterprises and Another

S.Sudhakar Vs M/S.Puvaneshwari Oil Traders

P.Shankar Vs M/s.Rich India Housing Pvt.Ltd