The Madras High Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction relating to trademark infringement under Section 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, solely due to non-prosecution as neither party appeared.
Permanent injunction suit dismissed for non-prosecution; no costs awarded.
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
(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)
WEDNESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.S. No.357 of 2015
M/s. Thalappakatti Hotels Private Ltd represented by its Managing Director D. Nagasamy Having its head office at No. 5/10-73E Seven Wells Street, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016.
... Plaintiff
-Versus-
Hotel NOOR THALAPAKATTI represented by NOOR Having his restaurant at No. 4/91, GST Road, Otteri, Vandalur Chennai – 600 048.
... Defendant
C.S.No. 357 of 2015
Civil Suit praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant a
Judgement and decree:
a) Granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their men,
servants agents or anyone claiming through or under them from in
any manner infringing and passing off the Plaintiff Trade Mark and
2
Trading style "Thalappakatti Biriyani Hotel" by using the offending Trade Mark and Trading Style " Thalappakatti" or any other mark or marks which are similar or in any way deceptively similar to or a colourable imitation of the Plaintiffs Trade Mark "Thalappakatti Biriyani Hotel"
and upon reading the plaint filed herein, it is ordered as follow:-
for non-prosecution.
3
WITNESS, THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE,
CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS AFORESAID, THIS THE
04TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021
Sd/ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (Comm.Case)
//Certified to be true copy//
Dated at Madras this the day of 2021.
COURT OFFICER(O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.
4
NS 25.08.2021
C.S.No. 357 of 2015
DECREE DATED 04/08/2021
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
FOR APPROVAL: 08/09/2021
APPROVED ON: 09/09/2021
5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.S.No.357 of 2015
M/s.Thalappakatti Hotels Private Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, D.Nagasamy Having its head office at No.5/10-73E, Seven Wells Street, St.Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016.
...Plaintiff
Vs.
Hotel NOOR THALAPAKATTI, represented by NOOR, Having his restaurant at No.4/91, GST Road, Otteri, Vandalur, Chennai – 600048.
...Defendant
Prayer: Plaint filed under Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C., r/w. Order IV Rule 1 of the High Court Original Side rules and Sections 134 & 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999,praying as follows:-
a) granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their men, servants, agents or anyone claiming through or under them from in any manner infringing and passing off the plaintiff Trade Mark and trading style “Thalappakatti Biriyani Hotel” by using the offending Trade Mark and trading style “Thalappakatti” or any other mark or marks which are similar
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ or in any way deceptively similar to or a colourable imitation of the
6
plaintiffs trade mark “Thalappakatti Biriyani Hotel”
b) directing the defendant to render a true and faithful account of the
profits earned by them through the sale of food products bearing the offending trade mark “Thalappakatti” and directing payment of such profits to the plaintiff by way of damages for infringement committed by the defendant.
c) directing the defendant to surrender to plaintiff the entire stock of
unused offending goods with Trade Mark “Thalappakatti” with name boards, labels, wrappers, boxes, covers, bags, packets, cartons, bills, advertisements, materials, reports, envelops, brochures, printing blocks, etc., bearing the offending trademark for destruction.
d) directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff the costs of the suit.d
For Plaintiff : No Appearance
For Defendant : No Appearance
J U D G M E N T
None appears for the plaintiff. Hence, this suit is dismissed for non-
prosecution. No costs.
7
List of witness and documents filed on the side of the plaintiff:
Nil
List of witness and documents filed on the side of the defendant:
Nil
Sd/- R.S.M.J. 04/08/2021 //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2021.
COURT OFFICER(O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to dismiss a suit filed for trademark infringement when neither party appears in court.
How to pronounce an order of non-prosecution in a civil suit.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
R. Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
