Disposed

Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. v. S.Jakir Hussain

Madras HC27 Sept 2021A/1558/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order addressing a trademark infringement suit. The defendant affirmed withdrawal of the infringing mark. The Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the defendant's premises to verify compliance without disturbing regular business and fixed fees and the report submission date.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Advocate Commissioner Judy Selva to inspect defendant's premises, bear travel expenses, and pay remuneration of Rs.25,000/-. Report to be filed by 07.10.2021.

Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. Vs S.Jakir Hussain — Intellectual Property | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

A.No.1558 of 2021 in C.S(Comm.Div.)No.142 of 2021

¶2

A.No.1558 of 2021 in C.S(Comm.Div.).No.142 of 2021

¶3

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶4

The defendant herein has filed an affidavit stating that he is no longer using the mark “Oyalo”, which is the subject matter of the present suit. Further, it is submitted that after the grant of injunction against the respondent/defendant, taking legal opinion and with an intention to avoid litigation, he has changed the trademark to “SILFA” and he has discarded all the printed cards which was used as an insert for displaying the name “Oyalo” and also withdrawn the trademark Application No.4462232 for Oyalo on 24.09.2021.

¶5

2. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff satisfies with the affidavit, however, to ensure that infringing trademark “Oyalo” has been withdrawn or replaced, the Court shall appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the premises of the defendant and file a report.

¶6

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant has no objection. However, put a caveat that, the Advocate Commissioner shall not disturb his regular business in the course of inspecting the defendant's premises.

¶7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶8

1/3

¶9

A.No.1558 of 2021 in C.S(Comm.Div.)No.142 of 2021

¶10

4. Considering the submissions, this Court is of the view that to

¶11

give quietus to the issue taking note of the affidavit filed by the defendant and to ensure that the undertaking given by the defendant is complied with, the Advocate Commissioner may visit the premises of the defendant at No.28/28, KNP Colony 1^st Street, Kangayam Cross Road, Tirupur-641 601, Tirupur District on 04.10.2021 and make inspection of the premises and take inventory

¶12

of infringed goods if any carrying the mark “Oyalo” and file a report to this

¶13

Court on 07.10.2021.

¶14

5. Ms.Judy Selva (Enrl.No.3667/2017) No.27, III Floor, Pandu

¶15

Klix Plaza Door No.330, 168, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai-600 001 is appointed as Advocate Commissioner. The learned counsel for the plaintiff shall bear the travel expenses of the Advocate Commissioner and pay the cash remuneration of Rs.25,000/-.

¶16

Call the matter on 07.10.2021.

¶17

27.09.2021

¶18

Note: Issue order copy on 28.09.2021

¶19

rpl

¶20

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶22

2/3

¶23

A.No.1558 of 2021 in C.S(Comm.Div.)No.142 of 2021

¶24

rpl

¶25

A.No.1558 of 2021
in C.S(Comm.Div.).No.142 of 2021
27.09.2021

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶27

3/3

Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. v. S.Jakir Hussain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. v. S.Jakir Hussain

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

K.Mekala Vs Arvind Bagrecha and 3 others

Itc Limited Vs Thathireddy Indra Reddy and 2 Others

K.a.Velayutham (Deceased) K.v.Sukumar Vs K.v.Vijayaraghavan (Deceased) 1.Mrs.R.N.Vijaya and another

H.VasanthaKumar (Decd.) Vs Manikandan Chandran

Codeyco S.P.A Vs V.K. Enterprises and 4 others

Mr.G.Suresh Proprietor Vs M/S Suresh Industries