This court dismissed a suit filed for a perpetual injunction against trademark infringement and passing off. Noted long delay in litigation without effective progress. Granted liberty to file fresh suit on fresh cause of action.
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.282 of 2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
C.S.No.282 of 2002
Intel Corporation,
Robert Noyce Building,
2200 Mission College Boulevard,
P.O. Box 58119, Santa Clara,
CA 95052-8119, USA,
rep. by its Constituted Attorney,
Ms.Angelicka Shankar ... Plaintiff
..Vs..
1.Mr.S.Ramanan,
Director,
Intel Tools & Diesets private Ltd.,
8, 43rd Street, 6th Avenue,
Ashok Nagar,
Chennai - 600 083.
2.Intel Tools & Diesets Private Ltd.,
8, 43rd Street, 6th Avenue,
Ashok Nagar,
Chennai - 600 083.
and also at
Factory No.11, 1st Street,
Narasinghapuram Extension,
Guindy, Chennai - 600 032. ... Defendants
C.S.No.282 of 2002
PRAYER : Plaint filed under and Order VII Rule 1 CPC read with Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Sections 27, 28, 29, 105, 106 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, prayed for a Judgment and
Decree:-
(a) A perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their partners
or properties as the case may be, their officers, servants, agents and representatives from manufacturing, selling and offering for sale machinery tools, cranes, hoists winches, gear boxes, brakes, industrial products under the name / mark INTEL or using the mark / name INTEL as its trading style / trade name and / or email address, website address and / or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark INTEL and / or in any manner plaintiff's trademark INTEL and / or in any manner whatsoever doing any other thing as may be likely to cause confusion or deception amounting to
passing off of their goods and business as and for those of the plaintiff's;
(b) An order for delivery up of all the goods, dyes, blocks, cartons,
labels and any other printed matter bearing the impugned marks, to the authorized representative of the plaintiff's for the purpose of destruction /
erasure;
C.S.No.282 of 2002
(c) An order for rendition of accounts of profits made by the
defendants on account of use of the mark / name INTEL be made and a
decree for the amount so found due be passed in favour of the plaintiff;
(d) Defendants be ordered and 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 trademark / trade name INTEL;
(e) For costs of this suit.
For Plaintiff : M/s.Chandhini Pradeep Kumar
For Defendants : No Appearance
*********
J U D G M E N T
Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.
C.S.No.282 of 2002
rna
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Mr. S. Ramanan
Intel Tools & Diesets Private Ltd.
C.V. Karthikeyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
