Dismissed

Hatsun Agro Product Ltd., v. Mr.Jitendra Manohar Balladkar

Madras HC20 Oct 2021CS/95/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The plaintiff filed a civil suit and connected applications seeking injunctions for trademark infringement and passing off. The court dismissed the suit as withdrawn by the plaintiff following the defendant's communication of discontinued business operations, closing all connected applications.

What did the court decide?

Suit dismissed as withdrawn by the plaintiff; all connected applications closed.

Hatsun Agro Product Ltd., Vs Mr.Jitendra Manohar… — Intellectual Property | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

C.S.No.95 of 2021 and O.A.Nos.152 & 153 of 2021 and A.No.1010 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 20.10.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

C.S(Comm.Div.).No.95 of 2021 and O.A.Nos.152 & 153 of 2021 and A.No.1010 of 2021 Hatsun Agro Product Ltd., Having registered office at No.1/20-A, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097 Also carrying on its business at Old No. AD-83/New No.AD13, Anna Nagar, Opp:IOB Towers Branch, Chennai-600 040. Represented by its Authorized Signatory. P.Siva Sakthivel. ... Plaintiff Vs.

¶7

Mr..Jitendra Manohar Balladkar, Sole Proprietor of M/s.Paushtik Foods, Gate No.451/1/1. Tapakir Nagar, Opp. Kendriy Vihar, Pune- Nashik Road, Moshi, Pune – 412105. ... Defendant

¶8

1/5

¶9

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

¶10

C.S.No.95 of 2021 and O.A.Nos.152 & 153 of 2021 and A.No.1010 of 2021

¶11

Prayer: The Civil Suit has been filed under Order VII Rule 1 C.P.C., read with order IV Rule 1 of High Court O.S. Rules and Section 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act 1999 and Section 7 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, praying for:-

¶12

(A). For a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant by himself, his heirs, legal representatives, successors-in-business, agents, servants, distributor or any one claiming through him from in any manner infringing the plantiffs registered trademark AROKYA by using the mark AROGYA or AAROGYA or any other deceptively similar mark in any manner whatsoever causing infringement to the plaintiff's registered trademark as described in the Schedule to the Plaint;

¶13

(B). For a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant by himself, his heirs, legal representatives, successors-in-business, agents, servants, distributor or any one claiming through him from in any manner whatsoever from passing off and enabling others to pass off the Defendant's business as that of the plaintiff's by using the mark(s) AROGYA or AAROGYA or any other mark which is deceptively similar and identical to the Plaintiff's trademark AROKYA in any manner whatsoever;

¶14

(C). For a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant by himself, his heirs, his representatives, successors-in-business, agents, servants, distributors or any one claiming through him in any manner whatsoever from using or redirecting to the domain name www.aarogyafood.com or any other domain name

¶15

2/5

¶16

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

¶17

C.S.No.95 of 2021 and O.A.Nos.152 & 153 of 2021 and A.No.1010 of 2021

¶18

which is deceptively similar and identical to the Plaintiff's registered trademark AROKYA;

¶19

(D). Directing the Defendant to surrender to the Plaintiff all the products with the offending labels, stocks with offending labels together with the blocks and dies, name boards, sign boards etc. for destruction;

¶20

(E). Direct the Defendant to transfer the domain name www.aarogyafood.com or any other domain name deceptively similar and identical to that of the Plaintiff's registered trademark AROKYA;

¶21

(F). Directing the Defendant to render true and faithful accounts of the profits earned by them through the sale of the offending dairy products bearing the offending trademark labels and directing payment of such profits to the Plaintiff;

¶22

(G). Directing the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages for committing acts of infringement of trademark and passing off;

¶23

(H). Directing the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff the costs of the suit.

¶24

For Plaintiff : Mr.Prashant Alai, for M/s.Suran & Surana

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

(Case has been heard through video conference)

¶27

3/5

¶28

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

¶29

C.S.No.95 of 2021 and O.A.Nos.152 & 153 of 2021 and A.No.1010 of 2021

¶30

A memo filed by the plaintiff stating that the defendant has communicated vide e-mail dated 29.06.2021 that he has discontinued the business operations in the name and style of AROKYA.

¶31

In view of the said communication, the plaintiff seeks withdrawal of
the suit with liberty to initiate fresh proceedings, in case the defendant infringes
the plaintiff's trademark AROKYA in future.
3. Recording the memo, the Suit is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty
as prayed. Consequently, all connected applications are closed. No order as to
costs.
20.10.2021
Index : Yes/No.
Internet :Yes/No.
rpl

¶32

4/5

¶33

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

¶34

C.S.No.95 of 2021 and O.A.Nos.152 & 153 of 2021 and A.No.1010 of 2021

¶35

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J. rpl

¶36

C.S(Comm.Div.).No.95 of 2021
and O.A.Nos.152 & 153 of 2021
and A.No.1010 of 2021
20.10.2021

¶37

5/5

¶38

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

Hatsun Agro Product Ltd., v. Mr.Jitendra Manohar Balladkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hatsun Agro Product Ltd., v. Mr.Jitendra Manohar Balladkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishal Film Factory Vs Nayanish B Aravandekar and another

M/s.Bajaj Electricals Limited, Vs Southern Petrochemicals Industries Corporation Limited

Khambadkone Meera Rao Vs Rathina Pandian Selvan

Tidel Park Limited., Vs M/S.Arkay Energy (Rameswaram)

M.Arumugam Vs D.Suresh Sanjay

M.Arumugam Vs D.Suresh Sanjay