Dismissed

Aquapump Industries and another v. S.Suganthi

Madras HC15 Nov 2023CONT P/1356/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition for contempt filed due to alleged willful disobedience of a High Court judgment. Court closed petitions because respondent changed address and stopped applying the impugned mark, allowing petitioner to re-apply later.

What did the court decide?

Closed Cont.P.No.1356 of 2023 and Sub.Appl.No.431 of 2023 by leaving them open to re-application upon identifying current address of respondent.

Aquapump Industries and another Vs S.Suganthi — Intellectual Property | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 15.11.2023

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶4

Cont.P.No.1356 of 2023 and Sub.Appl.No.431 of 2023

¶5

1.Aquapump Industries

¶6

rep by its Managing Partner Mr.Ramaswamy Kumaravelu Thudiyalur Post, Coimbatore 641 034. Having their branch office at New No.10, Old No.26, Errabalu Chetty Street, Parrys Corner, Chennai - 600 001.

¶7

2.Aquasub Engineering rep by its Managing Partner Mr.Ramaswamy Kumaravelu Thudiyalur Post, Coimbatore 641 034. Having their branch office at New No.10, Old No.26, Errabalu Chetty Street, Parrys Corner, Chennai - 600 001. ... Petitioners

¶8

-vs-

¶9

Ms.S.Suganthi, Proprietor, Aquatec Engineers No.556/1, Avinashi Road, Peelamedu, Coimbatore 641 004 And also at No.7/3A, Kennedy Street, Karuparayanpalayam, Coimbatore 641 062. ... Respondent 1/2

¶10

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

¶11

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J rna

¶12

PRAYER : Contempt petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, pleased to punish the respondent for the willful disobedience of the Judgment and Decree dated 10.02.2022 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.43 of 2021.

¶13

For Petitioners : M/s.C.Daniel & Gladys Daniel **********

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a memo dated 15.11.2023 stating that the respondent has vacated the address specified in the cause title of the petition and that the impugned mark is not being applied to goods at present.

¶16

In view of the aforesaid, Cont.P.No.1356 of 2023 is closed by leaving it open to the petitioner to re-apply upon identifying the current address of the respondent, provided the respondent resumes applying the impugned mark to its products. Consequently, Sub.Appl.No.431 of 2023 is also closed.

¶17

15.11.2023

¶18

rna

¶19

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Neutral Citation: Yes / No

¶20

Cont.P.No.1356 of 2023 and Sub.Appl.No.431 of 2023

¶21

2/2

¶22

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

Aquapump Industries and another v. S.Suganthi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aquapump Industries and another v. S.Suganthi

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

Cabot Corporation a Delaware Corporation Vs The Registrar of Trade Marks

Centaur Pharmaceuticals Private Limited Vs Sai Mirra INnopharm Private Limited

Godfrey Phillips India Limited Vs Khoday India Limited

Biodelivery Sciences International Inc. Vs Deput Controller of Patents and Designs

M/s. Sucampo Pharma, Llc Vs M/s. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs

Laurus Labs Pvt. Ltd. Vs H. Lundbeck a/s