On the plaintiff's application to withdraw the suit, the High Court of Madras dismissed the civil suit for trademark infringement and passing off as withdrawn and closed connected applications for documentary evidence with no costs awarded.
Suit dismissed as withdrawn; connected applications closed; no costs awarded.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)
THURSDAY, THE 29th DAY OF JULY 2021
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
CS.NO.862 of 2004
and
A.NOS.5878 & 5879 of 2010
*M/s.DEVI CROP SCIENCE PRIVATE LIMITED, 29A, workshop Road, Madurai – 625 001. having office at #3, Block A, III Floor, Old No.3, New No.11, Vijayaraghava Road, 1st street, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017 Represented by power of attorney holder Sankar M.V.
... plaintiff
*Amended as per order dated 22-08-2008 in Appl No: 3921 of 2008
-Versus-
M/s. Siva Agro Chemicals Industries, having their office at 7, Shreeji Mahal Apartment Opp. Khandero Market, AP Post, Tal & District, Baroda – 390 001, Gujarat. Represented by proprietor Mr. Ashok Thakkar ... Defendant
2
CS. No. 862 of 2004:-
Civil Suit praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant
judgment and decree on the following terms:
i) a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant by himself / themselves, their men, servants, agents, distributors, stockists, representatives, partners, directors or any of them from in any manner infringing the plaintiffs registered trademark BOOM PLUS by use of the trademark SUPER BOOM or any other mark similar to plaintiff's registered trademark or in any other manner whatsoever;
ii) a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant by himself / themselves, their men, servants, agents, distributors, stockists, representatives, partners, directors or any of them from in any manner passing off and enabling others to pass off the defendants goods as and for the plaintiffs goods by use of the trademark SUPER BOOM or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trademarks BOOM PLUS and BOOM FLOWER-n in identical colour scheme, layout or in any other manner whatsoever;
iii) The defendant be ordered to surrender to the plaintiff for destruction all fertilizers / flowering stimulants labels, dies, blocks, moulds, screen prints, advertisement and promotional materials, packing materials https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and any other materials bearing the trademark SUPER BOOM or any other
3
mark deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trademark BOOM PLUS and
BOOM FLOWER-n;
iv) A preliminary decree be passed favouring the plaintiff directing the defendant to render true account of profits made by the use of trademark SUPER BOOM and final decree be passed in favour of the plaintiffs for amount of profits said to have been made by the defendant after they have rendered accounts;
v) The defendant be ordered to pay damages to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.25,000/- as damages for the act of infringement of trademark and passing off committed by the defendant by manufacture and sale of fertilizers and flowering stimulants bearing the trademark SUPER BOOM;
vi) For cost of the suit.
A.No. 5878 AND 5879 of 2010:-
M/s.Devi Crop Science Private Limited 29A, workshop Road, Madurai – 625 001. having office at #3, Block A, III Floor, Old No.3, New No.11, Vijayaraghava Road, 1st street, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017 Represented by power of attorney holder Sankar M.V.
... plaintiff / Applicant
-Versus-
M/s. Siva Agro Chemicals Industries, having their office at
4
7, Shreeji Mahal Apartment Opp. Khandero Market, AP Post, Tal & District, Baroda – 390 001, Gujarat. Represented by proprietor Mr. Ashok Thakkar
... Defendant / Respondent
A.No.5878 of 2010:-
Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to reopen and recall the Chief Examination of the Plaintiff's witness PW-1 for marking additional documents in CS.No.862 of 2004.
A.No.5879 of 2010:-
Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to receive the additional documents mentioned in the Judges's Summons and permit the plaintiff to mark the documents in CS.No.862 of 2004.
| SL.NO | Date | Description of Document | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | 23.03.2005 & 12.08.2006 |
Property Tax Receipts | Original |
| 02 | 18.03.2008 | Letter from indian institute of soil science addressed to the plaintiff |
Xerox |
| 03 | 30.10.2008 | Letter from Dr S.Ramasamy with cover to the plaintiff |
Original |
| 04 | 08.11.2008 | Sales bill issued by camera citi to the plaintiff |
Xerox |
| 05 | 23.12.2008 | Delivery Chalan from Camera citi to the plaintiff |
Original |
| 06 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hc |
27.02.2009 services/ |
Invoice cum Delivery Challan issued by prochithi's Infotech |
xerox |
5
SL.NO
| SL.NO | Date | Description of Document | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|
| Marketers to plaintiff | |||
| 07 | 12.03.2009 | Letter from I I S S to the plaintiff | Xerox |
| 08 | 02.05.2009 | Post card from Trivam Solutions to the plaintiff |
Original |
| 09 | 27.07.2009 | Copy of the customer Application Form by the plaintiff to the Yahoo.India |
Xerox |
| 10 | 26.12.2009 | Letter from Indian Institute of Soil Science to the plaintiff |
Xerox |
| 11 | 28.04.2010 | Advertisement by the plaintiff in the News Paper “HINDU” |
Original |
| 12 | 06.05.2010 | Letter from Ram Tech Electronics to the plaintiff |
Original |
This suit along with these applications coming on this day before this
court for hearing in the presence of Mr.S.Patrick for Mr.K.Rajasekaran Advocates for the plaintiff in CS.No.862 of 2004 and for the applicant in A.Nos.5878 & 5879 of 2010 and Mr.Madhan Babu for Mr.R.Parthasarathy Advocates for the defendant in CS.No. 862 of 2004 and for the respondent in A.Nos.5878 &5879 of 2010 and upon reading the plaint filed in CS.No.862 of 2004 and the judge's summons and the affidavit of M.Murugan filed in A.Nos.5878 &5879 of 2010 and the learned counsel for the plaintiffs having submitted that he has got instructions to withdraw the suit, and this court doth recording the same, it is ordered as follows:-
That the suit in CS.No.862 of 2004, be and is hereby dismissed as withdrawn.
6
WITNESS THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT AT MADRAS AFORESAID, THIS THE 29th DAY OF JULY 2021.
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (Comm. Cases) //Certified to be true copy//
Dated at Madras this the day of 2022.
COURT OFFICER(O.S.)
From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.
7
SS
13.10.2021
CS. No.862 of 2004 and
A.Nos.5878 & 5879 of 2010
ORDER
DATED : 29.07.2021
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. SUBRAMANIAN
FOR APPROVAL: 21.01.2022
APPROVED ON: 24.01.2022
8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.S.No.862 of 2004 and
A.Nos.5878 & 5879 of 2010
M/s.Devi Crop Science Private Limited, 29A, Workshop Road, Madurai – 625 001. having office at #3, Block A, III Floor, Old No.3, New No.11, Vijayaraghava Road, 1st Street, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Represented by power of attorney holder, Sankar M.V. (Amended as per Order dated 22.08.2008 in Appl.No.3921 of 2008)
...Plaintiff
Vs.
M/s.Shiv Agro Chemicals Industries, having their Office at 7, Shreeji Mahal Apartment, Opp. Khanderao Market, AP Post, Tal & District, Baroda – 390 001, Gujarat. Represented by Proprietor, Mr.Ashok Thakkar ...Defendant
Prayer: Plaint filed under Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C., and Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules r/w. Sections 27, 28, 29, 134 & 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, praying as follows:-
i) a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant by himself / themselves, their men, servants, agents, distributors, stockists, representatives, partners, directors or any of them from in any manner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ infringing the plaintiffs registered trademark BOOM PLUS by use of the
9
trademark SUPER BOOM or any other mark similar to plaintiff's registered trademark or in any other manner whatsoever;
ii) a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant by himself / themselves, their men, servants, agents, distributors, stockists, representatives, partners, directors or any of them from in any manner passing off and enabling others to pass off the defendants goods as and for the plaintiffs goods by use of the trademark SUPER BOOM or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trademarks BOOM PLUS and BOOM PLOWER-n in identical colour scheme, layout or in any other manner whatsoever;
iii) the defendant be ordered to surrender to the plaintiff for destruction all fertilizers / flowering stimulants labels, dies, blocks, moulds, screen prints, advertisement and promotional materials, packing materials and any other materials bearing the trademark SUPER BOOM or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trademark BOOM PLUS and BOOM FLOWER-n;
iv) a preliminary decree be passed favouring the plaintiff directing the defendant to render true account of profits made by the use of trademark SUPER BOOM and final decree be passed in favour of the plaintiffs for amount of profits said to have been made by the defendant after they have rendered accounts;
v) the defendant be ordered to pay damages to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.25,000/- as damages for the act of infringement of trademark and passing off committed by the defendant by manufacture and sale of fertilizers and flowering stimulants bearing the trademark SUPER BOOM;
vi) For cost of the suit.
For Plaintiff : Mr.S.Patrick for Mr.K.Rajasekaran
10
For Defendant : Mr.Madhan Babu for Mr.R.Parthasarathy
Mr.S.Patrick, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff would submit
that he has got instructions to withdraw the suit.
2.Recording the said statement, this suit is dismissed as withdrawn.
No costs. Consequently, connected applications are closed.
Sd./-R.S.M.J.
29/07/2021
//Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2021.
COURT OFFICER(O.S.)
From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit filed for trademark infringement and passing off should be adjourned, dismissed as withdrawn, or otherwise disposed.
Whether connected applications for reopening examination and marking additional documents should be closed.
Whether costs shall be awarded to any party.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
R. Subramanian
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
