Allowed

Cavinkare Pvt. Ltd., v. M/S.Mikado Chinn-Kun Foods

Madras HC23 Mar 2022CS/267/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an intellectual property suit, the Court held that the defendant infringed the plaintiff's registered trademark and was liable for passing off. A permanent injunction was granted to restrain further infringement and passing off, and all infringing materials were ordered for destruction.

What did the court decide?

Permanent injunction granted against infringement and passing off. Defendant directed to surrender infringing materials for destruction. Costs of Rs. 2,00,000 awarded.

Cavinkare Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/S.Mikado Chinn-Kun Foods — Intellectual Property | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 23rd DAY OF MARCH 2022

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

C.S.No.267 of 2014

¶7

Cavinkare Pvt. Limited, "Cavinville", 12, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018. rep. by its Executive & Authorized Signatory, R.Thazhalan

¶8

... Plaintiff

¶9

-vs-

¶10

M/s.Mikado Chinn-Kun Foods, 4/324, Uchampatty, Dindal Post, Karimangalam Via Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri - 635 111 rep. by T.Chinna Samy

¶11

... Defendant

¶12

Civil Suit praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant a

¶13

judgement and decree on the following terms:-

¶14

a) a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, by itself, its

¶15

partners, men, servants, agents, distributors, stockiest, representatives or any

¶16

one claiming through or under them from in any manner infringing the plaintiff's registered trademark MAA under No.1109946 in class 32 by using a deceptively similar trademark MAA PLUS or any other trademark

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark or in any other

¶18

manner whatsoever;

¶19

¶20

b) a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, by itself, its

¶21

partners, men, servants, agents, distributors, stockiest, representatives or any one claiming through or under them from in any manner passing off and / or enabling others to pass off the Defendants' products under the trademark MAA PLUS as and for the plaintiffs' products by manufacturing, selling or offering to sell, distributing, displaying, printing, stocking, using, advertising their products with a trademark MAA PLUS or any other trademark which is identical or similar to the plaintiff's trademark MAA or in any other manner whatsoever.

¶22

c) the Defendant be ordered to surrender to plaintiffs for destruction of all products, labels, cartons, dyes, blocks, moulds, screen prints, packing materials and other materials bearing the trademark MAA PLUS or any mark deceptively similar to plaintiffs' registered trademark MAA.

¶23

(d) a preliminary decree be passed in favour of the plaintiffs directing the defendant to render account of profits made by use of trademark MAA PLUS and a final decree be passed in favour of the plaintiffs for the amount of profits thus found to have been made by the defendant after the latter have rendered accounts;

¶24

e) for costs of the suit.

¶25

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

¶26

This Civil Suit coming on this day before this Court for hearing in

¶27

¶28

the presence of Mr.R.Sathish Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff herein and defendant herein having not appeared in person or by advocate and the said defendants herein having been set exparte and upon reading the plaint filed herein and the other exhibits therein referred hereto and upon perusing the evidence adduced therein and this Court having observed that on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence adduced, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree in terms of the reliefs prayed for in prayers (a), (b), (c) and (e) of paragraph 21 of the plaint and as regards the relief prayed for in prayer (d), since the defendant was set ex parte and did not produce accounts, it is not possible to ascertain the profits or pay court fee thereon and therefore, prayer (d) of paragraph 21 of the plaint is rejected and it is ordered and decreed as follows:-

¶29

That M/s.Mikado Chinn-Kun Foods, rep.by T.Chinnasamy, the Defendant herein by itself, its partners, men, servants, agents, distributors, stockiest, representatives or any one claiming through or under them, be and are hereby restrained by an order of permanent injunction from in any manner (a) infringing the plaintiff's registered trademark MAA under No.1109946 in class 32 by using a deceptively similar trademark MAA PLUS or any other trademark deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark or in any other manner whatsoever (b) passing off and / or https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ enabling others to pass off the Defendants' products under the trademark

¶30

¶31

MAA PLUS as and for the plaintiffs' products by manufacturing, selling or offering to sell, distributing, displaying, printing, stocking, using, advertising their products with a trademark MAA PLUS or any other trademark which is identical or similar to the plaintiff's trademark MAA or in any other manner whatsoever.

¶32

That the defendant herein be and is hereby directed to surrender

¶33

to the plaintiff herein for destruction of all products, labels, cartons, dyes, blocks, moulds, screen prints, packing materials and other materials bearing the trademark MAA PLUS or any mark deceptively similar to plaintiffs' registered trademark MAA.

¶34

That the defendant herein, shall pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-

¶35

(Rupees Two Lakhs Only) as costs, which shall include Court fees, lawyer's fees and other costs.

¶36

WITNESS THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT AT MADRAS AFORESAID, THIS THE 23rd DAY OF MARCH 2022.

¶37

Sd./-

¶38

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (O.S-I)

¶39

//Certified to be true copy//

¶40

Dated at Madras this the day of 2022.

¶41

COURT OFFICER(O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11.04.2022

C.S.No.267 of 2014

DECREE:-

DATED : 23.03.2022

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE

¶49

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶50

FOR APPROVAL: 12.04.2022

¶51

APPROVED ON : 18.04.2022

¶52

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

¶53

¶54

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶55

DATED: 23.03.2022

¶56

CORAM

¶57

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶58

C.S.No.267 of 2014

¶59

Cavinkare Pvt. Limited, "Cavinville", 12, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018. rep. by its Executive & Authorized Signatory, R.Thazhalan

¶60

... Plaintiff

¶61

-vs-

¶62

M/s.Mikado Chinn-Kun Foods, 4/324, Uchampatty, Dindal Post, Karimangalam Via Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri - 635 111 rep. by T.Chinna Samy

¶63

... Defendant

¶64

PRAYER : Plaint filed under and Order VII Rule 1 CPC Read with Order IV Rule 1 OS Rules Read with Sections 27, 28, 29, 134 & 135 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 prayed for Judgment and Decree:-

¶65

(a) a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, by itself, its partners, men, servants, agents, distributors, stockiest, representatives or any one claiming through or under them from in any manner infringing the plaintiff's registered trademark MAA under No.1109946 in class 32 by

¶66

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ using a deceptively similar trademark MAA PLUS or any other trademark

¶67

¶68

deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark or in any other

¶69

manner whatsoever;

¶70

(b) a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, by itself, its partners, men, servants, agents, distributors, stockiest, representatives or any one claiming through or under them from in any manner passing off and / or enabling others to pass off the Defendants' products by manufacturing, selling or offering to sell, distributing, displaying, printing, stocking, using, advertising their products with a trademark MAA PLUS or any other trademark which is identical or similar to the plaintiff's trademark MAA or in any other manner whatsoever;

¶71

(c) the Defendant be ordered to surrender to plaintiffs for destruction of all products, labels, cartons, dyes, blocks, moulds, screen prints, packing materials and other materials bearing the trademark MAA PLUS or any mark deceptively similar to plaintiffs' registered trademark MAA.

¶72

¶73

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

¶74

¶75

(e) for costs of the suit.

¶76

For Plaintiff : Mr.R.Sathish Kumar

¶77

¶78

J U D G M E N T

¶79

The suit is filed to restrain the defendant from infringing the

¶80

plaintiff's registered trademark MAA under No.1109946 in class 32 by using the deceptively similar trademark MAA PLUS. The plaintiff has also prayed for an injunction restraining passing off and for ancillary relief such as surrender of infringing material for destruction and for rendition of accounts so as to obtain a decree for profits.

¶81

After obtaining permission from the Court, the plaintiff effected substituted service on the defendant by making a paper publication on 22.02.2016. Consequently, the defendant was set ex parte by order dated 06.01.2022. Thereafter, the plaintiff was permitted to adduce oral evidence.

¶82

The plaintiff filed the affidavit of evidence of Mr.R.Thazhalan, General Manager, Legal and Secretarial of the plaintiff, who was examined as P.W.1. 6 documents were exhibited through P.W.1 as Exs.P1 to P6. These documents include the certified copy of the trademark registration certificate of the plaintiff under No.1109946 in class 32 for the trademark MAA (Ex.P2); the original invoices for sale of products bearing registered

¶83

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ trademark MAA (Ex.P3 series); the print out of the plaintiff's soft drink

¶84

product bearing registered trademark MAA (Ex.P5); and the print out of the

¶85

¶86

defendant's soft drink product MAA PLUS (Ex.P6).

¶87

On the basis of the pleadings and the evidence adduced, the

¶88

plaintiff is entitled to a decree in terms of the reliefs prayed for in prayers (a), (b), (c) and (e) of paragraph 21 of the plaint. As regards the relief prayed for in prayer (d), since the defendant was set ex parte and did not produce accounts, it is not possible to ascertain the profits or pay court fee

¶89

thereon. Therefore, prayer (d) of paragraph 21 of the plaint is rejected.

¶90

Accordingly, the suit is decreed in terms of prayers (a), (b) and

¶91

(c) of paragraph 21 of the plaint. As regards costs, the defendant shall pay costs assessed in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only), which shall include court fees, lawyer's fees and other costs.

¶92

Sd./- S.K.R.J

¶93

23.03.2022

¶94

Plaintiff side Witness:

¶95

P.W.1 - R.Thazhalan

¶96

Plaintiff side Documents:

¶97

*Exhibit No.*	*Exhibits*
Ex.P1	True copy of authorization on my behalf for representing the plaintiff dated 12.05.2016.
Ex.P2	Certified copy of the trademark registration certificate of the plaintiff under No.1109946 in class 32 for MAA dated 07.06.2022.
Ex.P3	Original invoices for sale of MAA products by plaintiff. (12
(Series) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices	Nos.) /
Ex.P4	Press clippings showing the news regarding the plaintiff's

¶98

¶99

(Series)

¶100

*Exhibit No.*	*Exhibits*
(Series)	products under the trademark MAA and the point of sale posters. (mentioned in 65B certificate / affidavit) (8 Nos.)
Ex.P5	Printout of plaintiff's MAA soft drink product. (mentioned in 65B certificate / affidavit)
Ex.P6	Printout of defendant's MAA PLUS soft drink product. (mentioned in 65B certificate / affidavit)

¶101

Defendants side Witness and Documents:

¶102

-NIL-

¶103

Sd./- S.K.R.J

¶104

//Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2022.

¶105

COURT OFFICER(O.S.)

¶106

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

¶107

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

Cavinkare Pvt. Ltd., v. M/S.Mikado Chinn-Kun Foods

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cavinkare Pvt. Ltd., v. M/S.Mikado Chinn-Kun Foods

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

Spi Music Private Limited and another Vs Kancheepuram S.M.Silks

M/s.India Mart Inter Mesh Ltd. Vs M/S Susil Palm Products and 6 Others

M/s Annai Steels and 3 others Vs S.P.Chandrasekar

Collegedunia Web Private Limited Vs Srm Institute of Science and Technology and 6 others

Zydus Wellness Products Limited Vs Wipro Enterprises Ltd. and 2 Others

Halonix Technologies Pvt.Ltd. Vs Cema Electric Lighting