Plaintiff sued for injunction and damages regarding trademark infringement and copyright violation. Defendant filed an undertaking stating cessation of manufacturing/display of disputed goods, rendering the suit infructuous. Court dismissed the suit.
Suit dismissed as infructuous; connected applications closed; No costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.S.No.145 of 2012 and A.Nos.1988, 1989 & 1990 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.S.No.145 of 2012
and
A.Nos.1988, 1989 & 1990 of 2013
Nagarjuna Agrichem Ltd., MD Chambers, New No.53, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600004. ...Plaintiff Vs.
Crop Life Science Ltd., 209, 'Primate',
Near Judges Bunglow Cross Road, Bodakdev, Ahmedbad - 380015, Gujarat. ...Defendant
Prayer: Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the original side rules and Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C., r/w. Sections 27, 134 & 135 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 and Sections 51, 55 and 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957, praying as follows:-
a) a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, by itself, its distributors, stockists, servants, agents, retailers, marketers, advertisers, dealers, legal representatives or any other person claiming under them from in any manner infringing the plaintiff's copyright in the artistic work 'device
1/7
C.S.No.145 of 2012 and A.Nos.1988, 1989 & 1990 of 2013
of a leaf' by use of an identical device of a leaf or any other device, which is a substantial reproduction of plaintiff's artistic work 'device of a leaf' in colour scheme, getup, layout and arrangement of features amounting to infringement of copyright of artistic work or in any other manner whatsoever;
b) a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, by itself, its distributors, stockists, servants, agents, retailers, marketers advertisers, dealers, legal representatives or any other person claiming under them from in any manner manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, stocking, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in insecticides under the trademarks PROFIX and/or PROFIX SUPER or any other mark deceptively similar to plaintiff's trade marks PROFEX and / or PROFEX SUPER with identical colour scheme, get-up, layout, shape and size of carton so as to pass off their products as and for the plaintiff's products under the said marks or in any manner whatsoever;
c) the Defendant be ordered to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as liquidated damages for committing acts of infringement against Plaintiff's copyright in artistic works and to pass off their products as and for the Plaintiff's products;
d) the Defendant be ordered and decreed to deliver up for destruction to the Plaintiff all labels, dyes, blocks, plates, moulds, screen prints, packing materials, stationery and other materials belonging to the defendant in the nature of passing off their products as and for the plaintiff's prior adopted and distinctive trademarks PROFEX and PROFEX SUPER
2/7
C.S.No.145 of 2012 and A.Nos.1988, 1989 & 1990 of 2013
with the almost identical trademarks PROFIX and PROFIX SUPER and infringing the copyright in the unique artistic work in 'device of a leaf' and identical artistic work.
e) a preliminary decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff directing the Defendant to render accounts of profits made by them by use of the almost identical / deceptively similar trade marks PROFIX and PROFIX SUPER and the identical device of leaf and a final decree be passed in favour of the Plaintiff for the amount of profits found to have been made by the Defendant after the latter has rendered accounts;
plaintiff's registered trademarks “PROFEX” and “PROFEX SUPER”. The
plaintiff would seek reliefs of injunction claiming that the defendant is
using trademarks 'Profex' and 'Profex Super', which are deceptively similar
to the registered marks of the plaintiff.
2.It is seen from the records that an order of injunction is granted
3/7
C.S.No.145 of 2012 and A.Nos.1988, 1989 & 1990 of 2013
on 09.03.2012. The defendant has filed an affidavit stating that it has stopped manufacturing goods under the disputed trademarks “PROFIX” and
“PROFIX SUPER” and it is also stated that the defendant does not intend manufacturing or selling products with the above said trademark. The said
affidavit is taken on record.
3.In view of the undertaking given by the defendant, this suit is
dismissed of having become infructuous. No costs. Consequently,
connected applications are closed.
21.09.2021
kkn
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking
4/7
C.S.No.145 of 2012 and A.Nos.1988, 1989 & 1990 of 2013
List of witness and documents filed on the side of the plaintiff:
Nil
List of witness and documents filed on the side of the defendant:
Nil
21.09.2021
kkn
5/7
C.S.No.145 of 2012 and A.Nos.1988, 1989 & 1990 of 2013
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
KKN
C.S.No.145 of 2012
and
A.Nos.1988, 1989 & 1990 of 2013
6/7
C.S.No.145 of 2012 and A.Nos.1988, 1989 & 1990 of 2013
21.09.2021
7/7
R.Subramanian
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
