The court disposed of the suit filed under Section 151 CPC by recording the plaintiff's submission that the defendant is no longer carrying on the business or using the trademark. No order as to costs was made, and connected applications were closed.
No order as to costs; connected applications closed.
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.
C.S.628 of 2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated :07.12.2021
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Civil Suit No.628 of 2000
MRF Limited, 124, Greams Road, Chennai-600 006 .. Plaintiff
/versus/
Mr.Sanjay Dutta, 1/1A, Gobinda Sarkar Lane, Calcutta-700 012. ..Defendant
Prayer: Civil Suit has been filed under Section 151 C.P.C. and Order VII, Rule 1 of the C.P.C. Read with Order IV, Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules and Sections 27 & 105 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, praying to pass a judgment and decree for:-
(a) Granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his dealers, agents, representatives or any one claiming through him, from manufacturing, selling, advertising or offering or sale, batteries and other goods using the trade mark ZIGMA or any other trademark which is identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark ZIGMA and passing off or enabling others to pass off the business and goods of the defendant as and for those of the plaintiff.
1/4
C.S.628 of 2000
(b) For mandatory injunction directing the defendant to surrender to the plaintiff, for destruction, all his batteries, cartons, packages and other goods, sales promotion and advertising material packaging, stationery and all other materials/objects containing/ bearing the trade mark ZIGMA.
(c) For a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendant to render an account of the profits made by him by the use of the trademark ZIGMA on batteries or an any of his goods and a final decree in favour of the plaintiff for the amount of the profit found to have been made by the defendant after the defendant has rendered accounts.
(d) Directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the costs of the suit and
(e) for such further or other order that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
For Plaintiff :Mr.Madhan Babu
For Defendant :No Appearance
The learned counsel for the plaintiff on instructions
submitted that the defendant is no longer carrying on with the business or
is using the trademark of the plaintiff.
2/4
C.S.628 of 2000
be recorded by granting liberty to the plaintiff to approach this Court if any cause of action arises in future.
by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. There shall be no order as to
costs. Consequently, connected applications are closed, if any.
07.12.2021
Index:yes/no nsa/rka
C.S.628 of 2000
N.ANAND VENKATESH. J., nsa/rka
C.S.No.628 of 2000
07.12.2021
N. Anand Venkatesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
