Dismissed

Paris Products Limited v. Bakemans Industries Limited

Madras HC20 Jul 2021CS/204/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed a suit for trademark infringement and damages filed by Parle Products Limited against Bakemans Industries Limited. The court observed that the defendant was in liquidation and had ceased manufacturing the impugned products, rendering the cause of action for infringement non-survivable and it not worthwhile to pursue damages.

What did the court decide?

Suit dismissed under Order XIII A Rule 3(a) CPC; no costs; connected petition closed.

Paris Products Limited Vs Bakemans Industries Limited — Intellectual Property | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20^th DAY OF JULY 2021

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶6

C.S.No.204 of 1998 and A.No.5439 of 2019

¶7

Parle Products Limited Nirlon House, 254 B, Dr.Annie Besant Road, Mumbai 400 025 Represented by its Duly Constituted Attorney and Legal Executive : Plaintiff/Applicant

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

Bakemans Industries Limited, A-5/B-1, Mohan Co-Op.Indl.Estate Badarpur, New Delhi 110 044. : Defendant/Respondent

¶10

Civil suit praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass a judgment and decree against the defendant:

¶11

a) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its servants,

¶12

agents, distributors, stockist or anyone acting under or through it from in any manner manufacturing, marketing, distributing or selling its product under the mark GLUCOGOLD or any other mark deceptively similar to that

¶13

of the plaintiff's mark GLUCO thereby infringing the Plaintiff's mark

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

GLUCO;

¶16

¶17

b) Direct the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/00 or such sum that

¶18

may be found on taking accounts as damages. The plaintiff undertakes to

¶19

pay the additional court fees on taking of such accounts.

¶20

c) An order for delivery of all impugned finished goods, cartons, packing material, visual aids, catalogues, price lists, literature and advertisement bearing or containing the mark GLUCOGOLD or any other mark similar to that of the plaintiff for purpose of destruction.

¶21

d) Costs of the suit.

¶22

A.No.5439 of 2019:

¶23

Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to strike out the pleadings of the defendant as the same is not filed on time and proceed to hear the case as undefended.

¶24

This Civil suit along with Application coming on this day before this court for hearing in the presence of Mr.S.P.Chockalingam, Advocate for the Plaintiff in C.S.No.204 of 1998 and for the Applicant in A.No.5439 of 2019 and Mr.N.Damodharan, Official Liquidator appearing for the Defendant in C.S.No.204 of 1998 and for the respondent in A.No.5439 of 2019 and upon

¶25

reading the order herein dated 02.08.2019, and the learned counsel for the plaintiff having submitted that the defendant company has been wound up

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and the liquidator has been appointed by the Delhi High Court, and this

¶27

¶28

court having observed that the cause of action for infringement does not

¶29

survive, may be, the plaintiff has cause of action for damages, but, in view

¶30

of the fact that the defendant Company is under liquidation, it will not be worthwhile for the plaintiff to pursue the said cause of action. It is ordered as follows:-

¶31

That the suit in C.S.No.204 of 1998 be and is hereby dismissed under Rule 3(a) of Order XIII A of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

¶32

That there shall be no costs of this suit.

¶33

That the connected A.No. 5439 of 2019 do stand closed.

¶34

That any observations made in the interim orders vacating the

¶35

injunction granted by this Court shall not affect the rights of the plaintiff in any other similar proceedings, as those observations relate to existence of a

¶36

prima-facie case only and the matter was not dispose of by this Court on evidence.

¶37

WITNESS THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT AT MADRAS AFORESAID, THIS THE 20^th DAY OF JULY 2021.

¶38

Sd./-

¶39

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (Comm.Cases) //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2021.

¶40

COURT OFFICER(O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

¶41

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶42

¶43

SK 13.08.2021

¶44

C.S.No.204 of 1998 and A.No.5439 of 2019

¶45

ORDER :- DATED :20.07.2021

¶46

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶47

FOR APPROVAL: 13.09.2021

¶48

APPROVED ON: 14.09.2021

¶49

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶50

¶51

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶52

DATED : 20.07.2021

¶53

CORAM

¶54

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶55

C.S.No.204 of 1998 and

¶56

A.No.5439 of 2010

¶57

Parle Products Limited, Nirlon House, 254 B, Dr.Annie Besant Road, Mumbai – 400 025. Represented by its Duly Constituted Attorney and Legal Executive. ...Plaintiff

¶58

.Vs.

¶59

Bakemans Industries Limited, A-5/B-1 Mohan Co-op.IndI.Estate Badarpur New Delhi – 110 044. ... Defendant

¶60

Plaint filed under Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules and Sections 105 and 106 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 praying for a judgment and decree against the defendant:

¶61

a) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its servants, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ agents, distributors, stockist or anyone acting under or through it from in

¶62

¶63

any manner manufacturing, marketing, distributing or selling its product

¶64

under the mark GLUCOGOLD or any other mark deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff's mark GLUCO thereby infringing the plaintiff's mark GLUCO;

¶65

b) Direct the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- or such sum that may be found on taking account as damages. The plaintiff undertakes to pay the additional Court fees on taking of such accounts;

¶66

¶67

d) for costs of the suit.

¶68

For Plaintiff : Mr.S.P.Chokalingam For Defendant : Mr.N.Damodharan, Official Liquidator

¶69

¶70

J U D G M E N T

¶71

The suit is one for infringement of trade mark and for damages.

¶72

2. Mr.S.P.Chokalingam, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff

¶73

would submit that the defendant Company has been wound up and the liquidator has been appointed by the Delhi High Court.

¶74

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶75

3. The liquidator appointed by the Delhi High Court has filed a status

¶76

¶77

report stating that the defendant is no longer manufacturing any of the products that are subject matter of this suit.

¶78

4. Hence, the cause of action for infringement does not survive. May be, the plaintiff has cause of action for damages, but, in view of the fact that the defendant Company is under liquidation, it will not be worthwhile for the plaintiff to pursue the said cause of action.

¶79

5. Hence, the suit is dismissed under Rule 3(a) of Order XIII A of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. It is made clear that any observations made in the interim orders vacating the injunction granted by this Court will not affect the rights of the plaintiff in any other similar proceedings, as those observations relate to existence of a prima-facie case only and the matter was not dispose of by this Court on evidence.

¶80

Sd./-(R.S.M.J.,) 20.07.2021

¶81

List of the witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiff : Nil List of Exhibits marked on the side of the plaintiff : Nil

¶82

List of the witnesses examined on the side of the defendant: Nil List of Exhibits marked on the side of the defendant: Nil

¶83

20.07.2021

¶84

//Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2021.

¶85

COURT OFFICER(O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

Paris Products Limited v. Bakemans Industries Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paris Products Limited v. Bakemans Industries Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Periasamy Kalaiappan Vs a.R.Raham

Mr.Abhishek Mehta Vs M/s.Penna Cement Industries Limited

Mr.Abhishek Mehta Vs M/s.Penna Cement Industries Limited

Mr.S.Mohan Kumar and anothr Vs Mr.J.Rajassekar Babu and another

Mohan Breweries and Vs M/S Balaji Distilleries Ltd.

Godrej Agrovet Limited Vs Tt Krishnamachari & Co.