Dismissed

Agrigold Foods and Farms v. M/S.Hiluck Polyesters Pvt. Ltd.

Madras HC7 Sept 2021CS/119/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The defendant filed an undertaking to use 'AGREEGOLD' instead of 'AGRIGOLD' and cease related usage. Courts accepted the undertaking, discharged plaintiffs from seeking injunction or account of profits, and disposed of the suit recording the undertaking without costs.

What did the court decide?

Suit disposed of by recording defendant's undertaking; plaintiffs' other reliefs withdrawn; no costs awarded.

Agrigold Foods and Farms Vs M/S.Hiluck Polyesters Pvt… — Company and Corporate | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

C.S.No.119 of 2010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 07.09.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶6

C.S.No.119 of 2010

¶7

1.Agrigold Foods and Farms Products Ltd.,

¶8

Having its Registered Office at

¶9

No.40-1-21, 4^th Floor, Catholic Complex,

¶10

M.G.Road, Vijayawada – 520 010,

¶11

Andhra Pradesh.

¶12

Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director,

¶13

Mr.Venkata Rama Rao Avvas

¶14

2.Mr.Venkatarama Rao Avvas

¶15

Having his Registered Office at

¶16

No.40-1-21, 4^th Floor, Catholic Complex,

¶17

M.G.Road, Vijayawada – 520 010,

Andhra Pradesh.

...Plaintiffs

Vs.

M/s.Hiluck Polyesters Pvt. Limited, Bhiwani Road, Hansi, Haryana – 125 033. ...Defendant

¶22

Prayer: Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules and Order VII, Rule 1 of the C.P.C., r/w. Sections 27, 134 & 135 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, praying as follows:-

¶23

a) granting a permanent injunction, restraining the Defendant, by themselves, their servants, agents, distributors, or anyone claiming through

¶24

1/5

¶25

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶26

C.S.No.119 of 2010

¶27

them from manufacturing, selling, offering and advertising for sale using the Trade Mark AGREEGOLD upon the goods P.V.C.Pipes, Rigid P.V.C. Pipes and tubes or in any media and use the same in Invoices, letter heads and visiting cards or any other trade literature or by using any other Trade Mark which is in any way visually, phonetically or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs Registered Trade Mark AGRIGOLD under Nos.935848, 935849, 1051706, 1051758, 1051769, 1174585, 1174586, 1174587, 1174588, 1174589, 1174590, 1174592, 1174594, 1174595, 1174599, 1174600, 1174602, 1174603, 1174605, 1174607, 1174608, 1296901, 1176229 or in any manner infringing the Plaintiffs aforesaid Registered Trade Marks by using the mark AGREEGOLD either as prefix or suffix in the course of business.

¶28

b) directing the Defendant to surrender to the plaintiffs all the packing material, cartons, advertisement materials and hoardings, letterheads, visiting cards, office stationery and all other materials containing / bearing the Trade Mark AGREEGOLD or other deceptively similar Trade Mark.

¶29

c) for a preliminary decree in favour of the Plaintiffs, directing the Defendant to render an account of profits made by them by the use of the Trading style AGREEGOLD on the goods referred and for a final decree in favour of the Plaintiffs for the amount of the profits found to have been made by the Defendants, after the Defendants have rendered accounts.

¶30

d) directing the Defendant to pay to the plaintiffs the costs of the suit.

¶31

2/5

¶32

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶33

C.S.No.119 of 2010

¶34

For Plaintiffs : Mrs.Gladys Daniel For Defendant : Mr.Ashok Kumar J.Daga

¶35

Heard Mrs.Gladys Daniel, learned counsel appearing for the

¶36

plaintiffs and Mr.Ashok Kumar J.Daga, learned counsel appearing for the

¶37

defendant.

¶38

2.The defendant has filed an affidavit undertaking to continue to

¶39

use the Trademark as “AGREEGOLD” in respect of P.V.C.Pipes, tubes and fittings. It has also underken not to use the trademark “AGRIGOLD” in their businesses either as prefix or suffix.

¶40

3.The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs would submit

¶41

that the plaintiffs would be satisfied with such an undertaking and she gives up the reliefs 'B' and 'C' in the suit. The suit is therefore, disposed of recording the undertaking given by the defendant. No costs.

¶42

07.09.2021

¶43

kkn Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking

¶44

3/5

¶45

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶46

C.S.No.119 of 2010

¶47

List of witness and documents filed on the side of the plaintiffs:

¶48

Nil

¶49

List of witness and documents filed on the side of the defendant:

¶50

Nil
07.09.2021
kkn

¶51

4/5

¶52

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶53

C.S.No.119 of 2010

¶54

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

¶55

KKN

¶56

C.S.No.119 of 2010
07.09.2021

¶57

5/5

¶58

http://www.judis.nic.in

Agrigold Foods and Farms v. M/S.Hiluck Polyesters Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Agrigold Foods and Farms v. M/S.Hiluck Polyesters Pvt. Ltd.

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

M/S.N.Ranga Rao and Sons Vs Koyas Perfumery Works

.L.G.Varadarajulu Vs Minit Engineers (I) P.Ltd.

Vs

M/S Indo Overseas Films Rep.by Vs Jarden Electronics Rep.by Its

M.M.Sheik Dawood Vs M/S.Goel International Pvt. Ltd.

Raj Television Network Limited Vs Sun Tv Network Limited and 3 others