Dismissed

Mr.M.Anees Ahmed v. B.Firdous Ahmed

Madras HC1 Oct 2021CS/694/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed a trademark infringement suit filed under the Trade Marks Act 1999 against a sole proprietor who had died. Since the plaintiff could not identify the legal heirs, the court granted liberty to file a fresh suit against the current business owners.

What did the court decide?

Suit dismissed with liberty to file a fresh suit against the current owners of the business for the same cause of action.

Mr.M.Anees Ahmed Vs B.Firdous Ahmed — Intellectual Property | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

C.S.No.694 of 2019 and O.A.Nos.1096 & 1097 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 01.10.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

C.S(Comm.Div.).No.694 of 2019
and
O.A.Nos.1096 & 1097 of 2019
Mr.M.Anees Ahmed,
Represented by its Proprietor,
M/s.Ambur Star Briyani,
Having its office at No.116/1,
Arcot Road, Vadapalani,
Chennai-600 026. ... Plaintiff
Vs.
1.B.Firdous Ahmed,
Sole Proprietor,
Star Ambur Briyani,
No.1, Malar complex,
Padi Pudhu Nagar Main Road,
Anna Nagar West Extension, Chennai-600 101.
2.B.Firdous Ahmed,
Sole Proprietor,
Star Ambur Briyani,
No.99/9 New Avadi Road,
Kilpauk Garden, Chennai-600 010.
3.B.Firdous Ahmed,
1/6

¶7

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

¶8

C.S.No.694 of 2019 and O.A.Nos.1096 & 1097 of 2019

¶9

Sole Proprietor, Star Ambur Briyani, No.72, Pulianthope High Road, Chennai-600 012.

¶10

4.B.Firdous Ahmed, Sole Proprietor, Star Ambur Briyani, No.125/60, Dr.Natesan Road, Triplicane, Chennai-600 005.

¶11

5.B.Firdous Ahmed, Sole Proprietor, Star Ambur Briyani, 70, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

¶12

6.B.Firdous Ahmed, Sole Proprietor, Star Ambur Briyani, No.451, M.T.H.Road, Ambattur O.T., Chennai-600 053.

¶13

7.B.Firdous Ahmed, Sole Proprietor, Star Ambur Briyani, No.G-10 (HPCL), First Floor, 1^st Main Road, Ambattur Estate, Chennai-600 058. ... Defendants

¶14

Prayer: The Civil Suit has been filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C, and Sections 134 & 135 of Trade Marks Act 1999, praying for

¶15

2/6

¶16

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

¶17

C.S.No.694 of 2019 and O.A.Nos.1096 & 1097 of 2019

¶18

(a). Granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants, agents or anyone claiming through or under them from in any manner infringing the plaintiff trademark and trade style “AMBUR STAR BRIYANI” by using the offending trademark and trading style “STAR AMBUR BRIYANI” or any other mark or marks which are similar or in any way deceptively similar to or a colourable imitation of the plaintiff's trademark “AMBUR STAR BRIYANI”

¶19

(b). Granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants, agents or anyone claiming through or under them from in any manner passing off the plaintiff trademark and trade style “AMBUR STAR BRIYANI” by using the offending trademark and trading style “STAR AMBUR BRIYANI” or any other mark or marks which are similar or in any way deceptively similar to or a colourable imitation of the plaintiff's trademark “AMBUR STAR BRIYANI”;

¶20

(c). Directing the defendant to render a true and faithful account of the profits earned by them through the sale of food products bearing the offending trademark “STAR AMBUR BRIYANI” and directing payment of such profits to the plaintiff by way of damages for infringement committed by the defendant;

¶21

3/6

¶22

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

¶23

C.S.No.694 of 2019 and O.A.Nos.1096 & 1097 of 2019

¶24

(d). Directing the defendant to surrender to plaintiff the entire stock of unused offending goods with trademark “STAR AMBUR BRIYANI” with name boards, labels, wrappers, boxes, covers, bags, packets, cartons, bills, advertisements, materials, reports, envelops, brochures, printing blocks, etc., bearing the offending trademark for destruction;

¶25

(e). Directing to the defendant to pay the plaintiff the costs of the suit. For Plaintiff : Mr.Vijayan Subramanian For Defendants : No appearance J U D G M E N T (Case has been heard through video conference)

¶26

After filing the suit and having the interim order in his favour,

¶27

now the plaintiff wants to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit for the same cause of action on the ground that Mr. B.Firdous Ahmed who was running a business, infringing the trademark of the plaintiff had died.

¶28

The learned counsel who was representing the defendant also withdrawn his appearance. The plaintiff is unable to obtain the present address of the legal heirs of the deceased sole defendant and also the person who is in charge of

¶29

the business run by the deceased defendant Firdous Ahmed.

¶30

4/6

¶31

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

¶32

C.S.No.694 of 2019 and O.A.Nos.1096 & 1097 of 2019

¶33

2 . This Court, in the given facts and circumstances, is of the view

¶34

that liberty sought by the plaintiff may be granted. Accordingly, the suit is
dismissed with liberty to the plaintiff to file fresh suit for the same cause of
action against the current owners of the business, who are allegedly
infringing the trademark of the plaintiff. Consequently, connected original
applications are also dismissed. No costs.
01.10.2021
rpl
Index : Yes/No.
Internet :Yes/No.

¶35

5/6

¶36

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

¶37

C.S.No.694 of 2019 and O.A.Nos.1096 & 1097 of 2019

¶38

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶39

rpl

¶40

C.S(Comm.Div.).No.694 of 2019
& O.A.Nos.1096 & 1097 of 2019
01.10.2021

¶41

6/6

¶42

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

Mr.M.Anees Ahmed v. B.Firdous Ahmed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.M.Anees Ahmed v. B.Firdous Ahmed

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

Mrs.Shanthi Thiagarajan Vs K.E.Gnanavel Raja

M/S Maxtherm (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/S Mechtherm Energy Pvt. Ltd.

K.T.Rajakumaravel Vs Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. and another

Mr.M.Arumugam Vs Mr.D.Suresh Sanjay and 2 others

Whirlpool Properties Inc., Vs a.S.Associates

M/s Aarthi Scans Private Limited Vs Rt Diagnostics and 2 others