Dismissed

M/S.Matrimony.Com.Ltd v. Ayesha Jain

Madras HC19 Mar 2021CS/418/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Plaintiff filed a suit for trademark infringement and passing off against a Defendant where the suit was subsequently withdrawn based on an affidavit stating the Defendant had moved outside India making service impossible. The Court dismissed the suit as withdrawn but granted liberty to file a fresh suit.

What did the court decide?

Plaintiff granted liberty to institute a fresh suit with a fresh cause of action regarding the same trademark if a violation is found.

M/S.Matrimony.Com.Ltd Vs Ayesha Jain — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 19.03.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶5

C.S.No.418 of 2019
M/s.Matrimony.com Limited,
No.94, TVH Beliciaa Towers,
Tower-2, 10 th Floor,
MRC Nagar, Mandaveli,
Chennai – 600028.
rep.by its General Manager-Legal & Regulatory
Mr.S.Ravichandran
.. Plaintiff
/versus/
Ayesha Jain ... Defendant

¶6

This Civil Suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the High Court Original Side Rules, read with Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and Sections 27, 28, 29, 134 & 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 7 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, No 4 of 2016, prayed for a Judgment and Decree against the defendant:-

¶7

1/6

¶8

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

¶9

a).a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, by themselves, their directors, partners, men, servants, agents, broadcasters, representatives, advertisers, franchisees, licensees and/or all other persons acting on their behalf from in any manner infringing and/or enabling others to infringe plaintiff's registered trademarks, KERALAMATRIMONY, TAMILMATRIMONY, TELUGUMATRIMONY, KANNADAMATRIMONY, PUNJABIMATRIMONY etc, a list whereof is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-A and/or its variants by including them jointly or severally as “Keyword Suggestion Tool”, for Search Engine Optimization, Search Engine Marketing, as keywords or as adwords by bidding for the trademarks in the internet search or as meta tag in any other manner whatsoever;

¶10

b).A permanent injunction restraining the Defendant by themselves, their directors, partners, men, servants, agents, broadcasters, representatives, advertisers, franchisees, licensees and/or all other persons acting on their behalf from in any manner diverting the plaintiff's business to themselves by using the plaintiff's trademarks and domain names KERALAMATRIMONY, TAMILMATRIMONY, TELUGUMATRIMONY, KANNADAMATRIMONY, PUNJABIMATRIMONY etc, a list whereof is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-A and/or its variants, as adwords, for Search Engine Optimization, Search Engine Marketing, Keyword Suggestion Tool, as a keyword for the internet search and/or as meta tags and thereby passing

¶11

2/6

¶12

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

¶13

off and enabling others to pass off the business and services of the defendant as that of the plaintiff or in any other manner whatsoever;

¶14

c).the defendants be directed to surrender to the plaintiff for destruction all compact discs, master copy, advertising materials, pamphlets, brochures, etc., which bears the plaintiff's registered trademarks and/or any other variants which is phonetically and/or deceptively identical and/or similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks or in any other form whatsoever;

¶15

d).award damages of Rs.10,00,000/- for infringing and/or for passing off and/or for enabling others to infringe and/or pass off the plaintiff's trademarks and domain names;

¶16

e).a preliminary decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendant to render account of profits made by use of the plaintiff's trademarks and final decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff for the amount of profits thus found to have been made by the defendant, after the latter have rendered accounts;

¶17

f).for costs of the suit.

¶18

For Plaintiff : Mr.Arun C Mohan

¶19

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

¶20

3/6

¶21

For Defendant : No appearance

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

An affidavit had been filed by Mr.S.Ravichandran, who has been authorized by the Plaintiff company dated 18.03.2021. In the said affidavit it had been stated as follows:

¶24

“1.That I have been authorized by the Plaintiff Company in the present case to swear the present affidavit. I am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the present case form the records of the company. As on date of the suit I was working as the Associate Vice President – Legal & Regulatory with the Plaintiff company at Chennai.

¶25

2.I submit that the present affidavit is being filed for the withdrawal of the above since the defendant has changed its address outside India. At the time of filing of the suit, the Defendant had place of business at No.30, 18^th Main Road, 17^th Cross, JP Nagar, 5^th Phase, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560078. This

¶26

4/6

¶27

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

¶28

address was the address given in the website of the Defendant. Hence, the Plaintiff proceeded to file the suit with the above mentioned address of the Defendant.

¶29

3.However, the notice on the Defendant sent came back returned with the endorsement 'addressee left'. This was informed to this Hon'ble Court through the affidavit of service. Since the address at Bangalore was the only address available in the website, the plaintiff was unable to verify any new address in India.

¶30

4.Therefore, the Plaintiff is filing this affidavit in this regard. The plaintiff also reserves its liberty to file a fresh suit in the even the defendant establishes an office in India.

¶31

5.It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to take this affidavit on record and close this suit as withdrawn by the plaintiff.”

¶32

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.

¶33

smv

¶34

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶35

2.In view of the same, the suit is dismissed as withdrawn. No order as costs. The affidavit dated 18.03.2021 shall form part of the decree. 3.However, liberty is granted to the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit with a fresh cause of action with respect to the same trademark, if it is found that either the defendant or any other person acting under the defendant or any third party is violating the mark. 19.03.2021 smv Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No

¶36

C.S.No.418 of 2019

¶37

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

M/S.Matrimony.Com.Ltd v. Ayesha Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Matrimony.Com.Ltd v. Ayesha Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

1.M/S.BHARANI Silk Centre, Vs M/S.Bharani Silks and Ready

T.Solaisamy Prop. Vs M/S Eswari Laboratories Ltd.

Sun Tv Ltd., Vs M/S Hathway Cable of Data Cum

Angel Christian Charitable Foundation India Vs Evans Francis

Hatsun Agro Product Limited Vs M/s.Sreeja Farm and another

1.SUDHA Vijayakumar Vs 1.S.VIJAYAN @ Ramakrishnan