Dismissed

Maya Appliances Private Limite v. Bajaj Electricals Ltd.

Madras HC10 Dec 2019OA/175/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of three interim applications in a design infringement suit. Citing the dismissal of similar interim prayers in a parallel suit as well-founded, the court treated the present applications on the same merits as having been rightly dismissed, consequently closing the proceedings without granting an injunction or appointing a commissioner. Directing parties to file statements

What the court decided

AI extract

Maya Appliances Private Limite Vs Bajaj Electricals Ltd. — Madras HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

O.A.Nos.175, 176 &1672 of 2018 in C.S.No.123 of 2018

¶2

O.A.Nos.175, 176 & 1672 of 2018 in C.S.No.123 of 2018

¶3

Dr.G.Jayachandran, J.

¶4

The suit is filed alleging infringement in design. The plaintiff in the suit is the applicant in all the three applications, wherein, these interlocutory applications are taken out for ad interim injunction restraining the respondents men and agents from any manner (i) infringing the plaintiff's right of design (ii) passing off (iii) appointment of Advocate Commissioner to inspect and seized the infringing models.

¶5

In an identical suit and the applications filed by the plaintiff against the Butterfly Industries in C.S.677 of 2016, the learned single Judge of this Court after considering the rival submissions has passed the following order:

¶6

“17.This Court cannot give a relief to the applicants, which they would otherwise might become entitled to under the Patents Act, 1970. Admittedly, we are at the interlocutory stage. The registration obtained by the applicants per se cannot be the only factor to be seen even at this stage. The applicants have also admitted through the pleadings qua the similarity of the products, viz., one with registration and the other without it. Therefore, on an over-all consideration of the materials available on record, this Court does not find a prima-facie case for the grant of injunction as prayed for. Accordingly, the applications in O.A.Nos.814 and 815 of 2016 stands dismissed.

¶7

1/2

¶8

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶9

O.A.Nos.175, 176 &1672 of 2018 in C.S.No.123 of 2018

¶10

However, considering the nature of the issues involved, the parties are directed to file the documents relevant for deciding the suit, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As written statements are filed by the respondent, the issues will be framed and thereafter the matter would stand posted for recording evidence. The respondent shall also file a statement of accounts for the framelessness products sold every month from the date of filing of the suit, periodically, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Similarly, statements to be filed for the prospective sales on or before 7^th of every ensuing month with duly served copies on the applicants' counsel, till the disposal of the suit.

¶11

18.As the applications in O.A.Nos.814 and 815 of 2016 have been dismissed on merits, this Court is of the view that there is no necessity to allow the application filed for appointment of Advocate Commissioner being consequential.”

¶12

The said suit is also tagged along with the present suit. In the light of

¶13

the above, for the sake of uniformity in all these applications identical, order has been passed. Accordingly, these three applications are closed.

10.12.2019

rpl

2/2

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶18

O.A.Nos.175, 176 &1672 of 2018 in C.S.No.123 of 2018

¶19

rpl

¶20

Dr.G.Jayachandran, J.

¶21

O.A.Nos.175, 176 & 1672 of 2018
in C.S.No.123 of 2018
10.12.2019

¶22

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶23

3/2

Maya Appliances Private Limite v. Bajaj Electricals Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Maya Appliances Private Limite v. Bajaj Electricals Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bing Vs M/S.Sreedevi Video Corporation and 31 Others

Maurga Hotel (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. Vs I.T.C.Limited

Relish Snacks Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/S.Virchow Biotech Pvt. Ltd.

Bajaj Electricals Ltd. Vs Maya Appliances Private Limite

M/S. Maya Appliances P L Vs Elica Pb India P L

M/S.Salem Stainless Steel Suppliers (P) Ltd. Vs M/s.Sumeet Machnes Limited