This is a writ petition challenging a Commercial Division order dismissing a civil suit for trademark and copyright infringement. The High Court held the suit for non-prosecution since the plaintiff failed to appear and file vakalath after multiple adjournments notified to the plaintiff.
The suit is dismissed for non-prosecution.
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.
C.S.No.219 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated :11.04.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
C.S.[Commercial Div] No.219 of 2008
Civil Suit filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC r/w Order IV Rule 1 of
High Court O.S.Rules and Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, Section 55 & 62 of the Copy Right Act, 1957 for the following prayers
(a) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants or any one claiming through them from in any manner infringing the plaintiff's registered Trade Mark 'BABY' by using the
1/5
C.S.No.219 of 2008
offending the Trade Mark label TOTO with the device of 'Baby' or any other Trade Mark or device which is identical or deceptively similar to or a colourable imitation to that of the plaintiff's registered trade mark and Trade Mark Label 'BABY'
(b) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants or any one claiming through them from in any manner passing off the goods of the defendants as that of the plaintiff's by using the offending Trade mark label TOTO with the device of Baby as and for the trade mark of the plaintiff 'BABY' or any other Trade mark Label / device which is similar / deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff's registered trade mark 'BABY'.
(c) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men, agents, servants or any one claiming through them from in any manner infringing the plaintiff's copyright over the artistic work in the trade mark label 'BABY' by using the offending Trade Mark label TOTO with the device of Baby or any other trade mark label which is identical or colourable reproduction of the plaintiff's artistic work in the trade mark label 'BABY'
(d) To Direct the defendants to surrender to the plaintiff the entire stocks, boxes with the infringing trademark and unused infringing Trade Mark label together with blocks and dies for destruction.
2/5
C.S.No.219 of 2008
(e) To direct the defendants to render a true and faithful accounts of
the profits earned by them through the sale of their products bearing the infringing trademark label which is similar or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark and copyrighted label 'BABY' and directing the payment of such profits to the plaintiff.
(f) To direct the defendants to pay the costs of the suit to the plaintiff.
(g) To grant such further or other relief.
For Plaintiff : No appearance For Defendants : Set Exparte on 04.08.2021 Name printed – No appearance
J U D G M E N T
On an earlier occasion, viz., 04.08.2021, since the suit is for infringement of a trademark, this Court took cognizance of the suit. Though the defendants were served, they have not entered appearance, therefore, the defendants were set exparte and directed the matter to be listed before learned Additional Master III for recording exparte evidence on 06.09.2021.
C.S.No.219 of 2008
were not present, hence the matter was adjourned to 03.03.2022. On 03.03.2022, before the learned Master, the learned counsel for the plaintiff represented that he is not appearing for the plaintiff and there is other counsel, in Ms.4512/18 for plaintiff, therefore, sought to delete his name and hence the learned master directed the Registry to post the case before this Court.
16.03.2022
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking /Non-Speaking Judgment ssd
4/5
C.S.No.219 of 2008
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.,
ssd
C.S.[Commercial Div] No.219 of 2008
11.04.2022
5/5
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a suit for trademark and copyright infringement and interim relief will be dismissed for non-prosecution in light of the applicant's failure to file vakalath after repeated opportunities.
Whether the respondent's failure to appear affects the dismissal of a suit for non-prosecution when the applicant does not prosecute.
If any court-mandated questions arise in this case the court has deemed the suit as non-prosecuted and accordingly this case is dismissed.
M.M. Sheik Dawood (1) and M/s AL-Adil Exports (2)
Sivakumar (1) and M/s V.G. Keshwala & Sons (2)
V. Bhavani Subbaroyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
