Dismissed

Handy Instant Foods v. 1.NATURE`S Care

Madras HC22 Mar 2021CS/602/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice C.V. Karthikeyan dismissed a 19-year-old suit filed by Handy Instant Foods for trademark infringement of 'DIAMEAL'. Despite the suit being initiated by the original owner, the court held that the trademark had been assigned to Jeeva Industries. The suit was dismissed, but the interim injunction remained in force for the assignees to pursue fresh action.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs. The interim injunction granted to the plaintiff is continued for the assignees to institute a fresh suit.

Handy Instant Foods Vs 1.NATURE`S Care — Intellectual Property | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

C.S.No.602 of 2002

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 22.03.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

C.S.No.602 of 2002
Handy Instant Foods,
7, Chakrapani Street,
Chennai - 600 033. ... Plaintiff
..Vs..
1.Nature's Care,
PK 19, Phase V,
Industrial Estate,
Ekkatuthangal,
Chennai - 600 097.
2.Abel Nutraceuticals,
No.9, Bangaru Colony,
1st Street, K.K.Nagar West,
Chennai - 600 070 ... Defendants
PRAYER : Plaint filed under and Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side
Rules and Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with
Sections 105 and 106 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958,
prayed for a Judgment and Decree:-

¶7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 1/6

¶8

C.S.No.602 of 2002

¶9

(a) granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendants,

¶10

their distributors, stockist, servants, agents, retailers, representatives or any other person claiming under them from in any manner manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, stocking, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in the product under the trademark DIAMEAL or any other trademark containing the plaintiff's trademark DIAMEAL which is identical with or deceptively or phonetically similar to the plaintiff's trademark DIAMEAL so as to pass off the defendants product as and for the products of the plaintiff

¶11

or in any other manner whatsoever;

¶12

destruction to the plaintiff all the products, preparation, dyes, blocks, articles, literature, cartons, labels, papers and things bearing and containing

¶13

the impugned trademark DIAMEAL to an authorized representative of the

¶14

plaintiff, for destruction;

¶15

¶16

directing the defendants to render accounts of profits made by them by use

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 2/6

¶18

C.S.No.602 of 2002

¶19

of the trademark DIAMEAL or any mark similar thereto and a final decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff for the amount of profits found to have

¶20

been made by the defendants after the latter has rendered accounts.

¶21

(d) For costs of this suit.
For Plaintiff : M/s.Gladys Daniel
For Defendant 1 : Unserved
*********
J U D G M E N T
Suit had been instituted by Handy Instant Foods a partnership firm
taking advantage of Sections 105 and 106 of the Trade and Merchandise
Act, 1958, seeking protection and infringement of their trademark
DIAMEAL.

¶22

It is to be mentioned that actual trademark of the plaintiff is

¶23

DIVYA DIAMEAL. They are aggrieved with the defendants, since they infringed their mark by using the word DIAMEAL. It is informed by the

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 3/6

¶25

C.S.No.602 of 2002

¶26

learned counsel that an order of interim injunction had been granted which continues till date.

¶27

An affidavit has been filed by the plaintiff stating that on

¶28

11.11.2015 they had assigned their trademarks DIVYA and DIVYA

¶29

DIAMEAL to Jeeva Industries Private Limited. A memo has also been filed

¶30

by the learned counsel for the plaintiff affirming the said fact. It had been

¶31

stated that necessary protection should be given to the assignees Jeeva Industries Private Limited with respect to protection of the Trademarks DIVYA and DIVYA DIAMEAL.

¶32

The suit had been pending for the past 19 years. There has been

¶33

no effective progress, quite apart from the fact that an order of interim injunction continues till this date.

¶34

I have no reasons to continue to hold over the plaint on the

¶35

board of this Court. The suit is dismissed. However, the injunction granted

¶36

to the plaintiff would continue. If at all the Assignees, Jeeva Industries Private Limited has any cause of action either against the defendants or

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 4/6

¶38

C.S.No.602 of 2002

¶39

against anybody acting under the defendants or against any third party, they have liberty to institute a fresh suit and also take advantage of the fact that injunction had been granted to the plaintiff during the pendency of this suit.

¶40

With the above observation, suit is dismissed. No order as to
costs.
22.03.2021
Index : Yes / No
Web : Yes / No
rna

¶41

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

¶42

C.S.No.602 of 2002

¶43

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J

rna

C.S.No.602 of 2002

22.03.2021

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

Handy Instant Foods v. 1.NATURE`S Care

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Handy Instant Foods v. 1.NATURE`S Care

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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

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

Sun Tv Network Ltd. Vs Bharat Ssanchar Nigam Ltd.

Intel Corporation,Rep.by Its Vs 1.S.RAMANAN,DIRECTOR

Chinnaswami,Prop.,M/S.Assam Vs 1.M/S.BALAJI Consumer Products