Dismissed

Itc Ltd.,Rep.by Its Constitu v. Bhadrakali Match Works

Madras HC24 Aug 2021CS/537/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a civil suit for copyright infringement and passing off brought by ITC Limited against Bhadrakali Match Works as infructuous. The dismissal resulted from the defendant's written statement admitting no connection to the allegations and confirming never having used the impugned labels, thereby negating a live cause of action.

What did the court decide?

Suit dismissed as infructuous due to defendant's admission of non-use; no costs awarded; liberty to sue preserved for future causes of action.

Itc Ltd.,Rep.by Its Constitu Vs Bhadrakali Match Works — Madras HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶6

C.S. No.537 of 2003

¶7

ITC Limited 40, Chamiers Road, Chennai – 600 018 rep.by its Constituted Attorney Mr.R.Srinivasan

¶8

... Plaintiff

¶9

/versus/

¶10

Bhadrakali Match Works Main Road, Opp.Old Bus Stand, Ellayarampannai Sattur District 626 201 Tamil Nadu. ... Defendant

¶11

Civil suit praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant a decree and judgment on the following terms:-

¶12

a) a permanent injunction restraining the defendant by themselves, their partners/proprietor, heirs, legal representatives, successors in business, assigns, servants, agents, distributors, stockists, representatives or any one claiming through or under them from in any manner infringing the plaintiff”s artistic work AIM label by use of imitative VTM label or any other label, which is a substantial reproduction of plaintiff”s artistic work https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ AIM label, amounting to infringement of copyright.

¶13

¶14

b) a permanent injunction restraining the defendant by themselves,

¶15

their partners/proprietor, heirs, legal representatives, successors in business, assigns, servants, agents, distributors, stockists, representatives or any one claiming through or under them from in any manner passing off or enabling others to pass off their safety matches as and for the plaintiff's safety matches by use of VTM label or any other label, which is identical and/or deceptively similar to plaintiff's trademark and artistic work AIM label in colour scheme, getup and layout and in any other manner whatsoever.

¶16

c) the defendant be ordered to deliver up for destruction all the offending VTM labels, safety matches packed in offending VTM labels, packings, dies, blocks, screen prints, pamphlets, brochures and such other materials which are identical and/or deceptively similar to the trademark and artistic work AIM label;

¶17

d) the defendant be ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 10,05,000/- as liquidated damages for committing acts of copyright infringement and passing off;

¶18

e) a preliminary decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff to render https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ true and faithful accounts of profits earned by the defendant by sale of

¶19

¶20

safety matches using imitative VTM label and a 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;

¶21

f) for costs of the suit.

¶22

This Civil suit coming on this day before this court for hearing in the presence of Mr. Arun C.Mohan for Mrs.Brinda Mohan, Advocates for the Plaintiff herein and the defendant herein not appearing in person or by advocate and upon reading the plaint filed herein and the defendant has filed a written statement, stating that it is no way connected with the allegations made in the plaint and it has never used the VTM label and imitated the Plaintiff's AIM label in any manner, and learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff having submitted that the suit may be dismissed recording the above statements made in the written statement of the defendant, and this court having observed that the fact that the defendant had admitted that it is not using the alleged infringing trademark and it had never used the alleged infringing trademark and this court doth recording the same, it is ordered as follows:-

¶23

That the Suit in C.S.No.537 of 2003 be and is hereby dismissed of having become infructuous.

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

¶26

That there shall be no costs of this suit.

¶27

That the plaintiff herein shall be at liberty which shall be preserved

¶28

to sue, if there is a cause of action in future.

¶29

WITNESS THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT AT MADRAS AFORESAID, THIS THE 24th DAY OF AUGUST 2021.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (O.S.I) //Certified to be true copy//

¶32

Dated at Madras this the day of 2021.

¶33

COURT OFFICER(O.S.)

¶34

From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

03.09.2021

C.S. No.537 of 2003

ORDER :-

DATED : 24.08.2021

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶43

FOR APPROVAL: 07.09.2021

¶44

APPROVED ON: 13.09.2021

¶45

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶46

¶47

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶48

DATED: 24.08.2021

¶49

CORAM:

¶50

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶51

C.S.No.537 of 2003

¶52

ITC Limited, 40, Chamiers Road, Chennai – 600 018. rep. by its Constituted Attorney Mr. R. Srinivasan.

¶53

...Plaintiff

¶54

Vs.

¶55

Bhadrakali Match Works, Main Road, Opp. Old Bus Stand, Ellayarampannai, Sattur District – 626 201. Tamilnadu. ...Defendant

¶56

Prayer: Plaint filed under order IV Rule 1 of Madras High Court original side rules read with order VII rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 read with Sections 51, 55 & 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Sections 27, 105 & 106 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, praying as follows:-

¶57

¶58

plaintiff”s artistic work AIM label by use of imitative VTM label or any

¶59

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶60

other label, which is a substantial reproduction of plaintiff”s artistic work

¶61

¶62

AIM label, amounting to infringement of copyright.

¶63

b) a permanent injunction restraining the defendant by themselves,

¶64

their partners/proprietor, heirs, legal representatives, successors in business, assigns, servants, agents, distributors, stockists, representatives or any one claiming through or under them from in any manner passing off or enabling others to pass off their safety passing off or enabling others to pass off their safety matches as and for the plaintiff”s trademark and artistic work AIM label in colour scheme, getup and layout and in any other manner whatsoever.

¶65

c) the defendant be ordered to deliver up for destruction all the offending VTM labels, packings, dies, blocks, screen prints, pamphlets, brochures and such other materials which are identical and/or deceptively similar to the trademark and artistic work AIM label; d

¶66

d) the defendant be ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 10,05,000/- as liquidated damages for committing acts of copyright infringement and passing off;

¶67

e) a preliminary decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff to render true and faithful accounts of profits earned by the defendant by sale of safety matches 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;

¶68

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶69

f) for costs of the suit.

¶70

¶71

For Plaintiff : Mr.Arun C.Mohan for Mrs.Brinda Mohan For Defendant : No Appearance

¶72

J U D G M E N T

¶73

The suit is one for infringement of a Trademark. The suit was taken cognizance of by the Commercial Division on 10.08.2021. The defendant has filed a written statement, stating that it is no way connected with the allegations made in the plaint and it has never used the VTM label and imitated the Plaintiff's AIM label in any manner.

¶74

Heard Mr.Arun C.Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff. Mr.Arun C.Mohan would submit that the suit may be dismissed recording the above statements made in the written statement of the defendant.

¶75

3.Recording the said statement of the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and the fact that the defendant had admitted that it is not using the alleged infringing trademark and it had never used the alleged infringing trademark, this suit is dismissed of having become infructuous. No costs. Liberty is preserved to sue, if there is a cause of action in future.

¶76

Sd./-(R.S.M.J.,) 24.08.2021

¶77

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶78

¶79

List of witness and documents filed on the side of the plaintiff:

¶80

Yes

¶81

List of witness and documents filed on the side of the defendant:

¶82

Nil

¶83

Sd./-(R.S.M.J.,) 24.08.2021

¶84

//Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2021.

¶85

COURT OFFICER(O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

¶86

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Itc Ltd.,Rep.by Its Constitu v. Bhadrakali Match Works

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Itc Ltd.,Rep.by Its Constitu v. Bhadrakali Match Works

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

Sree Devi Video Corporation Vs a.N.Subbiah Prop.

M/S.Aravind Laboratories Vs Karan Kher

Chennai Vazh Kovilpatti Nadar Uravinmurai Sangam Vs L.M.Krishnaswami Nadar

Kishore Sons Detergent (P)Ltd Vs Sri Balaji Chemical Works

Kishore Sons Detergent (P) Ltd. Vs J.J.Chemical Industries

Mohan Breweries & Distilleries Vs M/S.Khoday Breweries Ltd.