A suit for trade mark infringement was dismissed for non-prosecution as a Memorandum of Compromise had been recorded by the court in a related matter in 2006, leaving nothing for further consideration in this lawsuit which was outstanding for over 17 years.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 09.03.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
C.S.No. 181 of 2003 AUSTIN REED LIMITED, Station Road, THIRSK, North Yorkshire, Y 07, 1 QH, England. ... Plaintiff Vs. 1. SUNTEX GARMENTS, 14, NITHY ADHAN MUKHERJEE ROAD, HOWRAH 711 101, Represented by its Partner Ram Chander Tiwari.
Prayer:
Civil Suit is filed under Sections 27, 105 and 106 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, (a) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, dealers, stockists, representatives or
anyone claiming through them from manufacturing, marketing, selling,
http://www.judis.nic.in advertising or offering for sale in the course of their business from using the
2
Trade Mark AUSTIN REED or any other Trade Mark which is in any way deceptively or phonetically similar to the plaintiff's Registered Trade Mark, under No.143, 878 in Class 25 in respect of 'complete articles of clothing' or in any manner infringing the said registered Trade Mark of the Plaintiffs;
(b) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants,
agents, stockists, dealers, representatives or anyone claiming through them from manufacturing, marketing, selling, advertising or offering for sale using the Trade Mark AUSTIN REED or using any other mark deceptively similar in respect of clothes or any other allied goods capable of passing off the defendants' goods/business as those of the plaintiff's;
(c) directing the defendants to surrender to the plaintiffs for destruction, all stocks containing the impugned Trade Marks AUSTIN REED including packaging, strips, labels and dies, blocks, etc., used in the course of manufacture;
(d) directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.10 lakhs by way of
damages and (e) for cost of the suit.
For Plaintiff : M/s.C.Daniel & Gladys Daniel
Defendants : Mr.Rahul M.Shankar
3
J U D G M E N T
The suit had been filed taking advantage of under Sections 27, 105
and 106 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 seeking protection
of the trade mark AUSTIN REED. Since it is an assertion of the intellectual
property right, the Commercial Division of this Court will have jurisdiction to examine the issues raised under Section 2 (1) (c) (xvii) of the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015.
2. It is informed that with respect to the grant of leave the matter travelled upto the Division Bench in O.S.A.Nos.209 and 210 of 2003. A Memorandum of Compromise had been filed by the plaintiff and the defendants, and that was also recorded by judgment dated 23.08.2006.
3. In view of the same, nothing survives for further consideration in
the present suit. Accordingly, the Civil Suit is dismissed for non prosecution.
No order as to costs.
09.03.2021
msm Index : Yes Internet : Yes Speaking order : Yes/No
4
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
msm
'
C.S.No. 181 of 2003
09.03.2021
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
