The Commercial Division dismissed a civil suit filed under the Trademarks Act for non-prosecution. The plaintiff had withdrawn instructions following the dismissal of a prior interim injunction application.
Suit dismissed for non-prosecution; no order as to costs.
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.747 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
C.S.No.747 of 2017
A.Rajendran,
S/o.P.V.Alagarswamy Naidu,
Proprietor A R Film Factori,
No.4/30, NRN Colony,
Thirumangalam Road, Villivakkam,
Chennai - 600 049. ... Plaintiff
..Vs..
1.Thenandal Studios Limited,
Represented by its Director N.Ramasamy
No.15, Old No.8,
Lake Area 5th Street,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai - 600 034.
2.N.Ramasamy,
Proprietor Sri Thenandal Films,
2/8, 80ft Road, Devar Garden,
Saligramam,
Chennai - 600 093. ... Defendants
PRAYER : Plaint filed under and Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure read with
C.S.No.747 of 2017
Sections 134 and 135 of Trademarks Act, prayed for a Judgment and
Decree:-
(a) By way of a Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants,
their men, agents, servants, or anyone acting through them from passing off the title "MERRASALAITAN" with "MERSAL".
(b) Directing the defendant to pay the cost of the suit.
For Plaintiff : Mr.A.V.Arun For Defendants : Mr.R.Parthasarathy for D1 Ms.R.Suriya Sivakumar for D2 ******* J U D G M E N T
The suit had been filed under Sections 134 and 135 of the
Trademarks Act, 1999, seeking protection from passing off the title MERRASALAITAN with MERSAL and also for costs.
C.S.No.747 of 2017
Commercial Division of this Court has jurisdiction to examine the lis under Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
application came up for consideration originally on 22.09.2017 and adinterim injunction was granted restraining the respondents from taking any
further action. Thereafter, the injunction application came up for consideration on again 06.10.2017 when the learned Single Judge after examining the issues in depth had dismissed the injunction application.
was also dismissed on 13.10.2017. Thereafter, the plaintiff appears to have
faded away and did not come forward to give instructions to the learned
counsel for the plaintiff. As is obvious in matters of similar nature, the plaint either survives or is abandoned depending on the order granted in the injunction application.
C.S.No.747 of 2017
only natural that the plaintiff had taken a sensible decision not to move further pursuing the suit.
on 09.02.2021 and again on 23.02.2021. It has been listed today i.e., on
04.03.2021. The learned counsel for the plaintiff again reiterated that the
plaintiff had not come forward to instruct him with the further course of action to be taken.
04.03.2021
Index : Yes / No Web : Yes / No rna
C.S.No.747 of 2017
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the suit challenging passing off of the title MERRASALAITAN should be decided on merits.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
1. Thenandal Studios Limited
2. N. Ramasamy
C.V. Karthikeyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
