Dismissed

Wipro Ltd., v. Neelgiri Wood Crafts

Madras HC28 Jun 2021CS/214/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras, considering an undertaking by the defendant not to use the impugned trademark, dismissed the copyright and trademark infringement suit under Order XIII Rule 3(a) of CPC (as amended). Liberty to take future action on infringement was reserved.

What did the court decide?

Suit dismissed under Order XIII Rule 3(a) CPC; liberty reserved to take action in case of future infringement.

Wipro Ltd., Vs Neelgiri Wood Crafts — Intellectual Property | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

C.S.No.214 of 2006

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 28.06.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶6

C.S.No.214 of 2006
1.Wipro Limited,
85, TTK Road,
Chennai – 600 018
rep. by its Manager – Legal and Constituted Attorney,
Manoj Kumar Jain
2.Wipro Trade Mark Holdings Ltd,
Doddakannahalli Village
Sarjapur Road,
Bangalore – 560 035.
rep. by its Constituted Attorney
Manoj Kumar Jain ...Plaintiffs
.Vs.
Neelgiri Wood Crafts,
Vill. Jorian,
Radaur Road,
Yamuna Nagar – 135 001.
Haryana ... Defendant

¶7

Plaint filed under Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules along with Sections 11, 27, 28, 29, 134, 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Sections 55

¶8

Page No.1/8

¶9

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

¶10

C.S.No.214 of 2006

¶11

and 62 of the Copyrights Act, 1957 praying for a judgment and decree for:

¶12

a) A permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their directors, partners, their officers, servants, agents and representatives from infringing the plaintiff's registered trademarks WIPRO and RAINBOW FLOWER by the use of an identical trademark WIPRO and RAINBOW FLOWER or any mark/s similar thereto or in any other manner whatsoever;

¶13

b) A permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their directors, partners, their officers, servants, agents and representatives from passing off and enabling others to pass off the defendants goods as and for the plaintiff's goods by manufacturing and selling and offering for sale plywood, wood products or any other product whatsoever under the trademarks WIPRO, RAINBOW flower logo or any mark/s similar thereto or in any other manner whatsoever;

¶14

c) A permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their directors, partners, their officers, servants, agents and representatives from infringing the plaintiff's copyright in the stylized script/ font of the trademark WIPRO and artistic work RAINBOW FLOWER device by printing, publishing, selling, offering for sale any product including ply woods, block wood, wood products or in any manner using the identical script/ font of the trademark WIPRO and artistic work RAINBOW flower logo, which are identical with the plaintiff's copyright in the artistic work, in the stylized script/ font of WIPRO and RAINBOW FLOWER;

¶15

Page No.2/8

¶16

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

¶17

C.S.No.214 of 2006

¶18

d) A declaration to the effect that the plaintiff's trademarks “WIPRO and the RAINBOW FLOWER DEVICE” are well-known trademarks as stated in the Trademarks Act, 1999;

¶19

e) An order for delivery up to the plaintiff or its authorized representative of all goods, dyes, blocks, labels, pamphlets and any other printed matter bearing the trademark WIPRO and artistic work RAINBOW flower logo or any mark similar thereto for destruction;

¶20

f) An order for rendition of accounts of profits made by the defendants on account of use of the trademark WIPRO and RAINBOW flower logo be made and a decree for the amount so found due be passed in favour of the plaintiff;

¶21

g) The defendants be decreed to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.10,05,000/- as damages for acts of infringement and passing off committed by the defendants by using identical trademarks WIPRO and the RAINBOW flower logo and

¶22

h) for costs.

¶23

¶24

Page No.3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶25

C.S.No.214 of 2006

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

The suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking

¶28

a) A permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their

¶29

directors, partners, their officers, servants, agents and representatives

¶30

from infringing the plaintiff's registered trademarks WIPRO and RAINBOW FLOWER by the use of an identical trademark WIPRO and

¶31

RAINBOW FLOWER or any mark/s similar thereto or in any other

¶32

manner whatsoever;

¶33

¶34

for sale plywood, wood products or any other product whatsoever under

¶35

the trademarks WIPRO, RAINBOW flower logo or any mark/s similar

¶36

thereto or in any other manner whatsoever;

¶37

c) A permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their

¶38

Page No.4/8

¶39

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

¶40

C.S.No.214 of 2006

¶41

directors, partners, their officers, servants, agents and representatives from infringing the plaintiff's copyright in the stylized script/ font of the trademark WIPRO and artistic work RAINBOW FLOWER device by printing, publishing, selling, offering for sale any product including ply woods, block wood, wood products or in any manner using the identical script/ font of the trademark WIPRO and artistic work RAINBOW flower logo, which are identical with the plaintiff's copyright in the artistic work, in the stylized script/ font of WIPRO and RAINBOW FLOWER;

¶42

d) A declaration to the effect that the plaintiff's trademarks “WIPRO and the RAINBOW FLOWER DEVICE” are well-known trademarks as stated in the Trademarks Act, 1999;

¶43

e) An order for delivery up to the plaintiff or its authorized

¶44

representative of all goods, dyes, blocks, labels, pamphlets and any other printed matter bearing the trademark WIPRO and artistic work RAINBOW flower logo or any mark similar thereto for destruction;

¶45

f) An order for rendition of accounts of profits made by the

¶46

Page No.5/8

¶47

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

¶48

C.S.No.214 of 2006

¶49

defendants on account of use of the trademark WIPRO and RAINBOW flower logo be made and a decree for the amount so found due be passed in favour of the plaintiff;

¶50

¶51

h) for costs of the suit.

¶52

2. Miss.Chandini Pradeed Kumar, learned counsel appearing for

¶53

the plaintiffs would submit that the defendant had undertaken not to use

¶54

the impugned trademark WIPRO. She has also produced a letter dated 05.04.2006. Though, the said letter does not in terms read as an

¶55

undertaking not to use the trademark, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs would submit that the defendant has stopped using the trademark of the plaintiffs and therefore nothing survives in the suit.

¶56

Page No.6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶57

C.S.No.214 of 2006

¶58

3. Hence, the suit is dismissed under Rule 3(a) of Order XIII A of

¶59

the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by the Commercial Courts Act,

¶60

2015, liberty is however reserved to take action if there is any

¶61

infringement in future.

¶62

28.06.2021
dsa
Index : No
Internet : Yes
Non-speaking order
List of the witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiff : Nil
List of Exhibits marked on the side of the plaintiff : Nil
List of the witnesses examined on the side of the defendants: Nil
List of Exhibits marked on the side of the defendants: Nil

¶63

28.06.2021
dsa

¶64

Page No.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶65

C.S.No.214 of 2006

¶66

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

¶67

dsa

¶68

C.S.No.214 of 2006
28.06.2021

¶69

Page No.8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Wipro Ltd., v. Neelgiri Wood Crafts

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wipro Ltd., v. Neelgiri Wood Crafts

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

The Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras Vs M/s. Wipro Ge Healthcare Private Limited(formerly know Ge Medical Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd)

Smt.C.Padmavathy and Another Vs S.Mano Renjith

Srinivasa Raghavan Vs Premier Property Development Pvt. Ltd.

M/s.Sun Tv Network Ltd. Vs M/s.Mary Matha Production

M/S.O.K. Films Vs M/S. Aditya Cable Views

M/S.Autar Singh and Co.P.Ltd. Vs 1.B.BALAJI,PROPRIETOR