Dismissed

M/S.Gnanam Cottage Industries v. B.Venkateswara Rao

Madras HC16 Mar 2021CS/925/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at MadRAS dismissed a century-old suit filed under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act to stop trademark infringement, holding that the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution as the defendant was deceased and the case remained pending since 2002.

What did the court decide?

Suit dismissed for non-prosecution. Liberty granted to institute a fresh suit regarding the same trademark.

M/S.Gnanam Cottage Industries Vs B.Venkateswara Rao — Intellectual Property | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 16.03.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶5

C.S.No.925 of 2002
M/s.Gnanan Cottage Industries
Rep.by its Sole Proprietor,
Mr.S.Gnanayutham,
26, Raghavan Colony,
Govindan Road,
West Mambalam,
Chennai – 600 033.
.. Plaintiff
/versus/

¶6

Mr.B.Venkateswara Rao, D.No.24-11-66/B, Isukavaghu Street, Gundur – 522 003. Andra Pradesh. .. Defendant

¶7

This Civil Suit is filed under Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Section 105 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, prayed for a Judgment and Decree:-

¶8

1/4

¶9

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶10

A.for a permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from using the trademark “BVR” Sandal Scented Powder in the product manufactured and marketed by him and further restraining him, his men, agents, servants or any other persons from manufacturing, formulating and/or marketing and passing off any product under the name “BVR” Sandal Scented Powder or any other name similar to “GSR” Sandal Scented Powder which is a trademark of the plaintiff and/or in the packing presently used by the defendant for the marketing of the product “BVR” Sandal Scented Powder and/or any other packing similar to or resembling the packing colour scheme and layout in which the plaintiff's product “GSR” Sandal Scented Powder is presently packed and marketed.

¶11

B.for delivery of and destruction of goods, packing, packages, labels, covers, cartons or other materials in the possession of the defendant, his men, agents, servants or employees which are used or proposed to be used for passing off the trademark of the defendant as that of the plaintiff and for marketing the products “BVR” Sandal Scented Powder is that of the plaintiff.

¶12

C.render a full, true and complete accounts of all the

¶13

transactions relating to manufacture and sale of the products “BVR” Sandal Scented Powder and disclose the profits realised therefrom and account to the plaintiff for all such profits and pay, deliver the same of the plaintiff.

¶14

2/4

¶15

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶16

D.directing the defendant to pay the costs of this suit to the

¶17

plaintiff.

¶18

For Plaintiff : M/s.Waraon & Sairams
For Defendant : Shrivatsan.
JUDGMENT
The suit had been filed under Section 105 of the Trade and
Merchandise Mark Act, 1958, seeking to protect the plaintiff's trademark
'GSR' Sandal Scented Powder.

¶19

2.Since it is an assertion of Intellectual Property Right, the Commercial Division of this Court will have necessary jurisdiction to examine the issues raised under Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

¶20

3/4

¶21

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶22

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.

¶23

smv

¶24

3.It is informed that the defendant is also no more. The suit is

¶25

pending from the year 2002.

¶26

4.The suit is therefore dismissed for non-prosecution. No order
as to costs.
5.However, liberty is granted to the plaintiff to institute a fresh
suit with a fresh cause of action with respect to the same trademark, if it
is found that any person acting under the defendant or any third party is
violating the mark.
16.03.2021
smv
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
C.S.No.925 of 2002

¶27

4/4

¶28

http://www.judis.nic.in

M/S.Gnanam Cottage Industries v. B.Venkateswara Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Gnanam Cottage Industries v. B.Venkateswara Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chaya Industries Ltd. Vs M/S.Owners and Parties

M/S. Golden Dragon Vs Golden Foods Indus

M/S.Tetco International Vs 1.M/S.THIRUVATHIRA Films

M/s.Carborundum Universal Limited Vs Mr.Kailash Jain, Proprietor Divya Diamond Tools

M/s.Carborundum Universal Limited Vs Mr.Kailash Jain, Proprietor Divya Diamond Tools

Mr Kailashmull Dagar Vs M/S Vaidya Patwaradhan