In a suit for trademark infringement, the plaintiff sought injunctions and damages against multiple defendants. Due to the absence of representation from both the plaintiff and the defendant on the hearing date for non-prosecution, the suit was dismissed.
The suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 24.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
C.S.No.342 of 2002
Vijay Nahar
Proprietor
M/s.Overeseas Incorporation
.. Plaintiff
/versus/
1.M/s.Meenakshi Impex
2.M/s.Raja Enterprises
3.Mr.Kanthilal Jain
4.M/s.Refill Indo Trading Company
5.Mr.Shantilal
6.M/s.Shantilal & Co. .. Defendants
( with regard to defendants 2 to 6,
separate order was passed on 05.09.2020. )
This Civil Suit is filed under Order VI Rule 1 of CPC read with Sections 105 and 106 of the Trade and Merchandise Act, 1958, prayed for a Judgment and Decree jointly and severally against the defendants:-
a).for a permanent interim injunction restraining the defendants, their partners, agents, any one claiming through or under them from using or selling the Bouncing Balls with the trademark 'Toy House', with its
1/4
specific or similar packing, colour combination and selling and passing off such Bouncing Balls and other toys under the trademark design and colour combination of the plaintiff.
b).for a declaration that the defendants their men or agents or not entitled to sell the product, high Bouncing Balls with the same design, size, carton packing, colour combination and trademark without the written permission of the plaintiff or anything similar to the plaintiff's goods.
c).directing the defendants to surrender to the plaintiff all the goods and toys namely High Bouncing Balls that have been imported or bought through them.
d).directing the defendants to render honest and true account of, the profits that the defendants derived from the business by using the design, colour combination and carton packing trademark, trade name of the plaintiff and pass on such profit to the plaintiff by way of damages.
e).directing the defendants 1 to 6 to pay to the plaintiff, the cost
of the suit.
For Plaintiff : No appearance For Defendant : No appearance
JUDGMENT
The matter was listed after a considerable number of years on
02.03.2021. The learned counsel for the plaintiff was requested to
examine and file an affidavit whether cause of action still survives as
2/4
against the 1st defendant.
2.It is noted that a judgment had been passed recording the compromise memo, which had been entered into between the plaintiff and the 2nd to 6th defendants. That judgment was passed on 05.09.2002.
3.On 16.03.2021, when the matter was again listed, the jurisdiction was determined and the learned counsel for the plaintiff however stated that they have given change of vakalat to the plaintiff. The name and address of the plaintiff was directed to be printed in the cause list. As directed, it is printed in the cause list, though mentioned as sole defendant. The name and address of the 1st defendant has also been printed in the cause list.
4.Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no
representation on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant. Hence, the suit is dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs.
24.03.2021
smv
Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J. smv
C.S.No.342 of 2002
24.03.2021
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the suit should proceed given the non-cooperation of parties.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Vijay Nahar
M/s. Meenakshi Impex
C. V. Karthikeyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
