M/s.Goodwin Pumps India P.Ltd. Vs Manikandan

¶1

1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBRAMANIAN

¶5

O.A.No. 1141 to 1143 of 2016 in C.S. No.633 of 2015

¶6

M/S.Goodwin Pumps India (P).LTD; (Fomerly known as M/s. Goodwin India (P) Ltd; Represented by its Authorized Signatory, K.Kalyanaraman, Currently at, No.112/1, Chinna Amman Koil Street, Kalavakkam, Thiruporur, Kancheepuram Dist.

¶7

...Plaintiff / Applicant in all the Applications

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Manikandan S/o. Jagadesan, No.147, SSV Koil Street, Vyasarpadi, Chennai – 600 039. 2.Usha Rani W/o.Jagadesan, No.147, SSV Koil Street, Vyasarpadi, Chennai – 600 039. 3.Senthil Kumar, No.19, Gandhi Mati Street, Vetri Nagar, Chennai- 600 082.

¶10

...Defendants / Respondents in all the Applications

¶11

O.A.No. 1141 of 2016:

¶12

https://hcservices.ec ourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

Original Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to

¶14

2

¶15

pass an order of interim injunction be passed restraining the respondents,

¶16

their men, agents, servants and anybody claiming under them, from in any manner representing themselves to be the employees, agents or otherwise being associated with the Application company, during pendency of the above suit.

¶17

O.A.No. 1142 of 2016:

¶18

Original Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order of interim injunction be passed restraining the respondents, their men, agents, servants and anybody claiming under them, from in any manner manufacturing, selling, supplying, service or otherwise dealing with in any form whatsoever, including but not limited to replicating the design and code of the pumps and products manufactured by the Applicant, during pendency of the above suit.

¶19

O.A.No. 1143 of 2016:

¶20

Original Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order of interim injunction be passed restraining the respondents, their men, agents, servants and anybody claiming under them, from using the domain name “goodwin”, directly or indirectly and with or without suffixes or prefixes, during pendency of the above suit.

¶21

These Original Applications coming on this day before this Court for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ hearing in the presence of M/s. Subhashiny for M/s. Rishi S.Ahiya,

¶22

3

¶23

Advocates for the applicant in all the original applications and

¶24

Mr.V.Selvaraj, Advocate for the respondents in all the original applications

¶25

and upon reading the Judge's Summons and the affidavit of K.Kalyanaraman filed in all the original applications and the Court made the following order:-

¶26

These three applications have been filed by the plaintiff seeking the following injunctive reliefs:-

¶27

i) restraining the respondents from representing themselves to be the employees, agents or authorized dealers of the applicant.

¶28

ii) interim injunction restraining the respondents from manufacturing the slurry pumps by copying the functional drawings of the applicant and replicating the design and code of the pumps manufactured by the applicant.

¶29

iii) restraining the respondents from using the domain name of the applicant (GOODWIN).

¶30

2.The plaintiff would claim that it is the first manufacturer of such pumps and the first defendant, who was an employee of the applicant had copied the design and had started manufacturing the pumps and marketing it

¶31

as if the products of the applicant. It is the further case of the applicant that

¶32

it came to know about the infringing act only when it made enquiries with

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶34

its customers regarding the absence of request for maintenance of the pumps

¶35

4

¶36

supplied by the applicant. It is also claimed that the defendants are also

¶37

manufacturing spare parts and passing them of, as if they are produced by

¶38

the applicant.

¶39

3.The respondents would completely deny the claim of the plaintiff and contend that they cannot be prevented from manufacturing the pumps. The respondents have made it very clear that they never claimed that they are associated with the applicant, after the 1st defendant left the applicant. They have also gone on record to say that they will not claim as employees of the applicant. An undertaking has also been given by them to that effect. They have also further stated that they are not using the domain name "GOODWIN" for their products.

¶40

4.The only issue is whether the respondents are manufacturing and marketing the slurry pumps by copying the working drawings / functional drawings of the applicant. The said issue will have to be decided on evidence, after trial. I do not think, the applicant could be favoured with an order for injunction at this stage. However, the undertaking given by the respondents that they will not use the domain name and they will not claim

¶41

to be the employees / agents or authorized dealers of the applicant is

¶42

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶43

recorded.

¶44

5

¶45

5.All these applications are disposed of as above.

¶46

WITNESS THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT AT MADRAS AFORESAID, THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (Comm. Cases) //Certified to be true copy//

¶49

Dated at Madras this the day of 2021.

¶50

COURT OFFICER(O.S.)

¶51

From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

¶52

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶53

6

¶54

EVK 01/09/2021

¶55

O.A.No. 1141 to 1143 of 2016 in

C.S. No.633 of 2015

ORDER

DATED : 01.09.2021

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. SUBRAMANIAN

¶60

FOR APPROVAL: 13.09.2021

¶61

APPROVED ON: 14.09.2021

¶62

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶63

7

¶64

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶65

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

¶66

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBRAMANIAN

¶67

O.A.No. 1141 to 1143 of 2016 in C.S. No.633 of 2015

¶68

M/S.Goodwin Pumps India (P).LTD; (Fomerly known as M/s. Goodwin India (P) Ltd; Represented by its Authorized Signatory, K.Kalyanaraman, Currently at, No.112/1, Chinna Amman Koil Street, Kalavakkam, Thiruporur, Kancheepuram Dist.

¶69

...Plaintiff / Applicant in all the Applications

¶70

Vs.

¶71

Manikandan S/o. Jagadesan, No.147, SSV Koil Street, Vyasarpadi, Chennai – 600 039. 2.Usha Rani W/o.Jagadesan, No.147, SSV Koil Street, Vyasarpadi, Chennai – 600 039. 3.Senthil Kumar, No.19, Gandhi Mati Street, Vetri Nagar, Chennai- 600 082.

¶72

...Defendants / Respondents in all the Applications

¶73

O.A.No. 1141 of 2016:

¶74

https://hcservices.ec ourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶75

Original Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to

¶76

8

¶77

pass an order of interim injunction be passed restraining the respondents,

¶78

their men, agents, servants and anybody claiming under them, from in any manner representing themselves to be the employees, agents or otherwise being associated with the Application company, during pendency of the above suit.

¶79

O.A.No. 1142 of 2016:

¶80

Original Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order of interim injunction be passed restraining the respondents, their men, agents, servants and anybody claiming under them, from in any manner manufacturing, selling, supplying, service or otherwise dealing with in any form whatsoever, including but not limited to replicating the design and code of the pumps and products manufactured by the Applicant, during pendency of the above suit.

¶81

O.A.No. 1143 of 2016:

¶82

Original Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order of interim injunction be passed restraining the respondents, their men, agents, servants and anybody claiming under them, from using the domain name “goodwin”, directly or indirectly and with or without suffixes or prefixes, during pendency of the above suit.

¶83

These Applications coming on this day before this court for hearing, the court made the following order:-

¶84

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶85

9

¶86

These three applications have been filed by the plaintiff seeking the

¶87

following injunctive reliefs:-

¶88

i) restraining the respondents from representing themselves to be the employees, agents or authorized dealers of the applicant.

¶89

ii) interim injunction restraining the respondents from manufacturing the slurry pumps by copying the functional drawings of the applicant and replicating the design and code of the pumps manufactured by the applicant. iii) restraining the respondents from using the domain name of the applicant (GOODWIN).

¶90

2.The plaintiff would claim that it is the first manufacturer of such pumps and the first defendant, who was an employee of the applicant had copied the design and had started manufacturing the pumps and marketing it as if the products of the applicant. It is the further case of the applicant that it came to know about the infringing act only when it made enquiries with its customers regarding the absence of request for maintenance of the pumps supplied by the applicant. It is also claimed that the defendants are also manufacturing spare parts and passing them of, as if they are produced by the applicant.

¶91

3.The respondents would completely deny the claim of the plaintiff and contend that they cannot be prevented from manufacturing the pumps. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The respondents have made it very clear that they never claimed that they

¶92

10

¶93

are associated with the applicant, after the 1st defendant left the applicant.

¶94

They have also gone on record to say that they will not claim as employees of the applicant. An undertaking has also been given by them to that effect. They have also further stated that they are not using the domain name "GOODWIN" for their products.

¶95

4.The only issue is whether the respondents are manufacturing and marketing the slurry pumps by copying the working drawings / functional drawings of the applicant. The said issue will have to be decided on evidence, after trial. I do not think, the applicant could be favoured with an order for injunction at this stage. However, the undertaking given by the respondents that they will not use the domain name and they will not claim to be the employees / agents or authorized dealers of the applicant is recorded.

¶96

5.All these applications are disposed of as above.

¶97

Sd./-R.S.M.J.

¶98

01/09/2021

¶99

//Certified to be true copy//

¶100

Dated at Madras this the day of 2021.

¶101

COURT OFFICER(O.S.)

¶102

From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

¶103

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/s.Goodwin Pumps India P.Ltd. v. Manikandan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Goodwin Pumps India P.Ltd. v. Manikandan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

L.G.Varadarajulu Vs Asratic Engineers Private Limited

M/S.People Infocom Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/S.Agi Music Sdn Bhd

M/S Apollo Metal Pvt., Ltd., Vs M/S Thiruvenkata Koner Co.

Kensoft Infotech Limited., Vs Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home

M/S.Sellappapa Keeran Vs Mr.S.Vijayaraghavan & Another

M/S.Aravind Laboratories Vs Kaybee Exim Pte Ltd.