Plaintiff filed a suit for trademark infringement and passing off under the Trademarks Act. The court dismissed the suit as withdrawn by the plaintiff after the defendant submitted an affidavit stating non-use of the disputed trademark.
Suit dismissed as withdrawn. No costs ordered. Liberty reserved to sue in future.
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.No.659 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.S.No.659 of 2015
Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited, MD Chambers, New No.53,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600004 rep. By its Vice President – Legal & Company Secretary, Mr.M.Ramakanth ...Plaintiff Vs.
NCDEX e Markets Limited, Akruti Corporate Park, 1st Floor, Near G.E.Garden, L.B.S.Marg, Kanjurmarg (West), Mumbai – 400 079. ...Defendant
Prayer: Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side rules and Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C., r/w. Sectiosn 27, 28, 29, 134 & 135 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, praying as follows:-
a) a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, by themselves, their directors, principal officers, distributors, stockists, servants, agents, retailers, marketers, advertisers, dealers, legal representatives or any other person claiming under them from in any manner using, selling, offering for sale, stocking, advertising, directly or indirectly
1/6
C.S.No.659 of 2015
dealing in the website under the trademark / service mark the mark MANDI which amounts to infringement of the plaintiff's trademark / service mark MANDI registered under No.1957218 or any other mark which is identical or deceptively similar thereto or in any other manner whatsoever;
b) a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, by themselves, their directors, principal officers, distributors, stockists, servants, agents, retailers, marketers, advertisers, dealers, legal representatives or any other person claiming under them from in any manner using, selling, offering for sale, stocking, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in the website under the trademark / service mark MANDI or any other mark deceptively similar to plaintiff's trademark / service mark MANDI so as to pass off their services as and for the plaintiff's services under the said mark or in any manner whatsoever;
c) the defendant be ordered to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as liquidated damages for committing acts of infringement against plaintiff's trademark / service mark MANDI and to pass off their services as and for the plaintiff's services;
d) the defendants be ordered and decreed to deliver up for destruction to the plaintiff all the software, CDs, or any other electronic media, brochures, leaflets, pamphlets, hand bills, hoardings, wall posters, stationery items and such other sales promotional materials bearing and / or containing the impugned trademark “MANDI”;
e) a preliminary decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff directing the Defendant to render true accounts of profits made by them by
2/6
C.S.No.659 of 2015
use of the identical trade mark / service mark MANDI and a final decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff for the amount of profits found to have been made by the defendant after the latter has rendered accounts;
f) for costs of the entire proceedings.
For Plaintiff : Mr.Rahul M Shankar for
Arun C.Mohan
For Defendants : Mr.Adithya Reddy
J U D G M E N T
Mr.Rahul M.Shankar, learned counsel for the plaintiff would
submit that he has got instructions to withdraw the suit. The defendant had
also filed an affidavit stating that it is not using the disputed trademark any
more.
2.In view of the said submission made by the learned counsel for
the plaintiff and taking into account the affidavit filed by the defendant, this suit is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Liberty is reserved to sue in the
event, there is a fresh cause of action.
21.10.2021
kkn
3/6
C.S.No.659 of 2015
Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking / Non-Speaking
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
21.10.2021
kkn
4/6
C.S.No.659 of 2015
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
KKN
C.S.No.659 of 2015
5/6
C.S.No.659 of 2015
21.10.2021
6/6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the suit regarding trademark infringement can be withdrawn.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
R.SUBRAMANIAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
