Allowed

Mrs.Preethi v. Mr.Suresh R.Jain

Madras HC18 Apr 2022C.S(COMM DIV)/22/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras, Commercial Division, decreed a matter based on a joint settlement memo. The defendant agreed to permanent injunctions regarding copyright and passing off, while plaintiffs relinquished claims for account of profits and destruction of goods.

What did the court decide?

Permanent injunctions granted to restrain infringement and passing off as per joint settlement; relinquished claims for account of profits and surrender of goods.

Mrs.Preethi Vs Mr.Suresh R.Jain — Company and Corporate | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.22 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 18.04.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.22 of 2021 and O.A.Nos.427, 428 of 2021 and A.No.2451 of 2021

¶7

1.Preeti

¶8

2.Kosmos Global, a Proprietary Concern Represented by its Proprietor Mr.Piyush Jain No.20, Revanayer Street, Park Town, Chennai - 600 003. ... Plaintiffs

vs.

Suresh R.Jain

... Defendant

PRAYER : Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules and Order VII Rule 1 of CPC, Sections 27(2), 134 and 135 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 and Sections 51, 55 and 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 7 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, No.4 of 2016 prayed for Judgment

¶13

and Decree:-

¶14

1/6

¶15

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

¶16

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.22 of 2021

¶17

(a) Granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men,

¶18

servants, agents or anyone claiming through or under him from in any manner infringing the plaintiff's registered copyright in the pack / carton by using the offending pack / carton under the name "Skenique" or any other name or trademark which is similar or in any way deceptively similar to or colourable imitation of the plaintiff's pack / carton for any hair colour products under the trademark "BEAUTE BLANC" or in any manner selling the same.

¶19

(b) Granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, servants, agents or anyone claiming through or under him from in any manner passing off his hair colour products as that of the plaintiff's by using a similar pack / carton under the name "Skenique" or any other trademark which is similar or in any way deceptively similar to or colourable imitation of the plaintiff's carton / pack under the trademark "BEAUTE BLANC" and in any manner selling the same.

¶20

2/6

¶21

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

¶22

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.22 of 2021

¶23

¶24

profits earned by them through the sale of the product hair colour in a similar or deceptively similar or a colourable imitation of the pack / carton / trade dress bearing the offending name "Skenique" and directing payment of such profits to the plaintiffs by way of damages for passing off committed by the defendant.

¶25

(d) Directing the defendant to surrender to the plaintiffs the entire stock of unused offending goods under the similar or deceptively similar carton / pack trade dress under names "Skenique" together with cartons, labels, printing blocks, boxes etc bearing the name "Skenique" for destruction.

¶26

(e) Directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff the cost of the suit.

¶27

For Plaintiffs : Mr.N.Nithianandham For Defendant : M/s.Rahul K.Jain

¶28

¶29

3/6

¶30

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

¶31

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.22 of 2021

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

The suit was filed for alleged infringement of copyright, passing off, rendition of accounts with a decree for profits and surrender of infringing materials. The parties have entered into a settlement. Both parties have submitted a joint memo dated 18.04.2022. Such joint memo is duly signed by both the plaintiffs and the sole defendant. The respective counsel have also signed the joint memo. On perusal thereof, it appears that the defendant has agreed to a decree in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of paragraph 26 of the plaint and the plaintiffs have agreed to relinquish prayers (c) to (e) of paragraph 26 of the plaint. On examining the terms of settlement, there is no legal impediment to the issuance of a decree in terms thereof.

¶34

Accordingly, C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.22 of 2021 is decreed in terms of the joint memo dated 18.04.2022, which shall form an integral part thereof. Since parties have agreed that the parties shall bear their own costs,

¶35

4/6

¶36

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

¶37

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.22 of 2021

¶38

there will no order as to costs. Consequently, O.A.Nos.427, 428 of 2021 and A.No.2451 of 2021 are closed.

¶39

18.04.2022

¶40

rna Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶41

5/6

¶42

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

¶43

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.22 of 2021

¶44

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J

¶45

rna

¶46

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.22 of 2021 and O.A.Nos.427, 428 of 2021 and A.No.2451 of 2021

¶47

18.04.2022

¶48

6/6

¶49

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

Mrs.Preethi v. Mr.Suresh R.Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.Preethi v. Mr.Suresh R.Jain

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

M/s.Rajarathnam construction(P)ltd Vs M/s.Ganapathy Funds and 5 others

Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. Vs M/s.Riniva Marketing Pvt.Ltd.

M/S.Air Travel Enterprises India Limited Vs S.Thirumal

M/s.Google India Pvt. Ltd. Vs K.Bharathi Raja and another

N. Venkatesan., Vs T.N.Janarthanan

Dr.Aravind Chander Vs Dr.S.Chandralekha and another