Dismissed

Mohammed Idris Brother P.Ltd., v. 1.K.M.HAMEED Sultan & 3 Others

Madras HC8 Jul 2021CS/791/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a trademark infringement suit seeking permanent injunction, mandatory direction for destruction of infringing materials, and costs, the Madras High Court dismissed the suit under Order XIII A Rule 3(a) CPC. The court dismissed the case because defendants 1 and 2 were deceased, the third defendant was a plaintiff director, and the fourth was a dealer, leaving no substantive dispute to adjudicate

What did the court decide?

Suit dismissed under Order XIII A Rule 3(a) CPC on the ground that in view of subsequent events, the plaintiff has no chance of succeeding in the suit.

Mohammed Idris Brother P.Ltd., Vs 1.K.M.HAMEED Sultan… — Intellectual Property | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

C.S.No.791 of 2000

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 08.07.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶6

C.S.No.791 of 2000
Mohammed Idris Brothers Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Joint Managing Director,
K.M.Akbar Ali ...Plaintiff
.Vs.
1.K.M.Hameed Sultan
2.K.M.Mohammed Yusuf
3.K.M.Umar Farook
4.V.M.Kamal Batcha ... Defendants

¶7

Plaint filed under Order VII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code read with Sections 105 and 106 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act read with Order IV Rule 1 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules praying for a judgment and decree as follows :

¶8

Page No.1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶9

C.S.No.791 of 2000

¶10

a) pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 4 their men, agents, assignees, successors, heirs, legal representatives and anyone claiming under or through them from in any manner infringing the trade mark, logo, name and emblem of the plaintiff under the name of style of KIBS as found in the registration of trade mark No.268909 (B) in the name of Mohammed Idris Brother Pvt. Ltd., or any other name or trade mark deceptively similar or identical to the trade mark and name KIBS of the plaintiff in the course of their respective and collective trades

¶11

b) pass a decree of the mandatory direction directing the defendants to surrender the offending a prints, dies, etc., involving the trade mark of the plaintiff or any trade mark identical with or deceptively similar to the same of the plaintiff for destruction and

¶12

c) award the costs of the suit of the plaintiff.

¶13

For Plaintiff : Mr.R.Srinivas

¶14

For Defendants : Mr.Prasanna Venkat for Mr.A.Prabhakara Reddy ********

¶15

Page No.2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶16

C.S.No.791 of 2000

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

The suit has been filed by the plaintiff for a decree and judgment:

¶19

a) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 4 their

¶20

men, agents, assignees, successors, heirs, legal representatives and anyone claiming under or through them from in any manner infringing the trade mark, logo, name and emblem of the plaintiff under the name of style of KIBS as found in the registration of trade mark No.268909 (B) in the name of Mohammed Idris Brother Pvt. Ltd., or any other name or trade mark deceptively similar or identical to the trade mark and name KIBS of the plaintiff in the course of their respective and collective trades

¶21

b) for a mandatory direction directing the defendants to surrender

¶22

the offending a prints, dies, etc., involving the trade mark of the plaintiff

¶23

or any trade mark identical with or deceptively similar to the same of the

¶24

plaintiff for destruction and

¶25

c) for costs of the suit of the plaintiff.

¶26

Page No.3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶27

C.S.No.791 of 2000

¶28

2. Mr.R.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff

¶29

would submit that he has no instructions from the plaintiff.

¶30

3. Mr.Prasanna Venkat, learned counsel appearing for the defendants 1 to 4 would submit that the defendants 1 and 2 are no more

¶31

and the 3^rd defendant is the Director of the plaintiff Company. The 4^th

¶32

defendant is the Dealer having a retail outlet. Therefore, nothing survives to be adjudicated in the suit.

¶33

4. The statement of the counsel is recorded and the suit is

¶34

dismissed under Rule 3(a) of Order XIII A of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 on the ground that in view of the subsequent events, the plaintiff has no chance of succeeding in the suit. No costs. It is always open to the plaintiff to

¶35

initiate fresh proceedings if there is any violation in future.

¶36

08.07.2021

¶37

dsa Index : No Internet : Yes Non-Speaking order

¶38

Page No.4/6

¶39

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

¶40

C.S.No.791 of 2000

¶41

List of the witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiff : Nil

¶42

List of Exhibits marked on the side of the plaintiff : Nil

¶43

List of the witnesses examined on the side of the defendants: Nil

¶44

List of Exhibits marked on the side of the defendants: Nil

¶45

08.07.2021
dsa

¶46

Page No.5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶47

C.S.No.791 of 2000

¶48

dsa

¶49

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

¶50

C.S.No.791 of 2000
08.07.2021

¶51

Page No.6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Mohammed Idris Brother P.Ltd., v. 1.K.M.HAMEED Sultan & 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Idris Brother P.Ltd., v. 1.K.M.HAMEED Sultan & 3 Others

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

A.Haridass Vs Hansraj Varma IAS

K.v.Sayan Vs State Rep.by

Asianet Communications P Ltd. Vs 1.SURYA Tv,a Unit of Sumangali

M/S. Kerala Jewellers Vs M/S. Kerala Jewellery

R.Balasubramanian Vs Shanthi Hosiery and 12 Others

Mothi Textiles Vs Rajamani Fabrias