Partly allowed

Poomex Clothing Company v. S.Thirumurugan

Madras HC16 Dec 2024C.S(COMM DIV)/137/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Trademark infringement and passing off suit by registered proprietor of 'Poomex' against user of 'Poomak' in inner garments trade. Court held marks deceptively similar, decreed permanent injunctions and surrender of materials, but rejected damages claim for want of evidence, awarding Rs.1 lakh costs.

What did the court decide?

Permanent injunctions against use of 'Poomak', surrender of infringing materials within two months, and costs of Rs.1,00,000/-; damages claim of Rs.25 lakhs rejected.

Poomex Clothing Company Vs S.Thirumurugan — Intellectual Property | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

2024:MHC:4154

¶2

C.S.(Comm.Div) No.137 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 16.12.2024

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶7

C.S.(Comm.Div) No.137 of 2022

¶8

Poomex Clothing Company (registered partnership firm), Rep. By its Partner Mr.K.Rangasamy, Tirupur.

¶9

... Plaintiff

¶10

Vs.

¶11

S.Thirumurugan, Sole Proprietor M/s.Poomak, Thanjur.

¶12

... Defendant

¶13

Prayer: Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules and Order VII Rule 1 of the C.P.C. read with Sections 27, 28, 29, 134 and 135 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 and Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 for

¶14

a) granting a permanent injunction, restraining the Defendant, by itself, its servants, agents, distributors, or anyone claiming through him from manufacturing, selling, advertising and offering for sale using same or similar trademark POOMAK or any other similar Trademark or in any signboard, media and use the same in invoices, letter heads and visiting cards or with respect to manufacturing and knit wear, hosiery, readymade garments, sportswear, is in any way visually or deceptively or

¶15

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

¶16

1/25

¶17

C.S.(Comm.Div) No.137 of 2022

¶18

phonetically similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark POOMEX in any manner whatsoever;

¶19

b) granting a permanent injunction, restraining the Defendant, by itself, its servants, agents, distributors, or anyone claiming through him from manufacturing, selling, advertising and offering for sale using same or similar trademark POOMAK or any other similar logo/label or in any signboard, media and use the same in invoices, letter heads and visiting cards in any manner visually or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's label/artistic work POOMEX;

¶20

c) a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, by himself, his partners, men, servants, agents, representatives or any one claiming through them from in any manner passing off and/or enabling others to pass off the defendant's product and services as and for the plaintiff's products and services by using, selling, or offering to sell, distributing, displaying, printing, advertising their products bearing the trademark POOMAK or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark POOMEX or with any prefix or suffix or in any other manner whatsoever;

¶21

d) the defendant be ordered to surrender to the plaintiff for destruction of all products, labels, dyes, blocks, moulds, screen prints, packing materials and other materials bearing the trademark POOMAK identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark POOMEX;

¶22

e) The defendant be ordered and decreed to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- for acts of infringement of plaintiff's trademark and pass off their goods as that of the plaintiff; and

¶23

f) costs of the suit.

¶24

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

¶25

2/25

¶26

C.S.(Comm.Div) No.137 of 2022

¶27

For Plaintiff : Mr.R.Sathish Kumar

¶28

For Defendant : Mr.M.I.Mohammed Qays

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

This suit has been filed for infringement, passing off and for

¶31

damages.

¶32

2. The plaintiff's trademark is 'Poomex' and the defendant's trademark is 'Poomak'. Admittedly, both the plaintiff as well as the defendant are in the same trade of selling inner garments. The plaintiff is having registration for their trademark 'Poomex' under Classes 24 and 25. They have been using the said trademark since 2003. The details of the trademark registrations obtained by the plaintiff have also been disclosed in the plaint. The details of the sales turn over of the plaintiff, which runs to several crores of rupees is also disclosed in the plaint. The advertisement costs incurred by the plaintiff for advertising their products under the trademark 'Poomex' is also disclosed in the plaint, which also runs to a huge amount.

¶33

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

¶34

3/25

¶35

C.S.(Comm.Div) No.137 of 2022

¶36

3. According to the plaintiff, they came to know recently that the

¶37

defendant is using a deceptively similar trademark and selling undergarments by using the trademark 'Poomak'. A cease and desist notice was sent by the plaintiff on 18.03.2022 to the defendant calling upon them to stop using the deceptively similar mark 'Poomak'. A reply dated 26.03.2022 was also sent by the defendant to the said cease and desist notice. Since the defendant did not stop using the deceptively similar trademark, the plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit for

¶38

infringement, passing off and damages.

¶39

4. A written statement has also been filed by the defendant

¶40

denying the contentions of the plaintiff. The defences raised by the

¶41

defendant as seen from the written statement are as follows:-

¶42

(a) The suit filed by the plaintiff has to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, since, according to them, no part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court.

¶43

(b) The defendant's trademark 'Poomak' is not deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff's trademark 'Poomex'. According to the defendant,

¶44

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

¶45

4/25

¶46

C.S.(Comm.Div) No.137 of 2022

¶47

trademark.

¶48

their trademark is not phonetically similar to that of the plaintiff's trademark.

¶49

(c) A trademark by name 'Poomer' is already in the market and therefore, the question of the plaintiff's exclusive right to use the mark 'Poomex' does not arise.

¶50

5. Inadvertently, this Court did not frame issues earlier, but, allowed the parties to let in oral and documentary evidence. Therefore, necessarily, this Court will have to frame issues now. Based on the pleadings of the respective parties, the following issues are framed:-

¶51

(a) Whether this Court is having territorial jurisdiction to decide the suit?

¶52

(b) Whether the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademark 'Poomex' with respect to goods under Class 25?

¶53

¶54

(d) Whether the trademark 'Poomex' and 'Poomak'

¶55

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

¶56

5/25

¶57

C.S.(Comm.Div) No.137 of 2022

¶58

are deceptively similar to each other?

¶59

(e) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim reliefs

¶60

as prayed for in the plaint, which includes the relief

¶61

of damages as well?

¶62

(f) To what other reliefs?

¶63

6. Before the learned Additional Master - IV, High Court, Madras,

¶64

Mr.C.Gokulakrishnan, Sales Manager of the plaintiff's firm, was examined as a witness (PW1) on behalf of the plaintiff. He has also filed

¶65

a proof affidavit, reiterating the pleadings made in the plaint. Through PW1, the following documents were marked as exhibits:-

¶66

Ex.P1 is the original authorization letter dated 22.08.2023.

¶67

Ex.P2 is the photocopy of the certificate of Registration of Trademark POOMEX under application No. 1231782 in class 24 along with Legal User Certificate dated 31.05.2005.

¶68

Ex.P3 is the photocopy of the Certificate of Registration of Trademark POOMEX under application No. 1231783 in class 24 along with Legal User Certificate dated 31.05.2005.

¶69

Ex.P4 is the photocopy of the IEC – Importer

¶70

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

¶71

6/25

¶72

C.S.(Comm.Div) No.137 of 2022

¶73

Exporter Code Certificate with Branch & Amendment Details dated 10.08.2005.

¶74

Ex.P5 is the photocopy of the Tamilnadu Commercial Tax Registration Certificate dated 01.01.2007.

¶75

Ex.P6 is the photocopy of the Certificate of Registration of Trademark POOMEX under application No. 1374330 in class 25 along with certified copy of the Legal User Certificate dated 05.06.2007.

¶76

Ex.P7 is the original Deed of Partnership dated 01.04.2011.

¶77

Ex.P8 is the photocopy of the plaintiff newspaper publication – Caution Notice on Daily Thanthi dated 11.01.2014.

¶78

Ex.P9 is the photocopy of the Government of Tamilnadu Firm Registration Certificate Registration No. 457/2015 & Entry Extracts dated 10.06.2015.

¶79

Ex.P10 is the printout of the Income Tax Returns filed by the plaintiff company for the Financial years 2017 – 2018 to 2021 – 2022.

¶80

Ex.P11 is the printout of the plaintiff's distributors list.

¶81

Ex.P12 (Series) (29 Nos) are the photocopy of the plaintiff sales Invoices including offline sales, online sales and foreign countries sales in the period of 2017 to 2022.

¶82

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

¶83

7/25

¶84

C.S.(Comm.Div) No.137 of 2022

¶85

Ex.P13 is the printout of the plaintiff promotional materials purchase bills and invoices issued by television networks for the period 2019 to 2022.

¶86

Ex.P14 (Series) (58 Nos) are the photocopy of the plaintiff's product advertisement features in various Tamil Dailies and Magazines for the period 2021 to 2022.

¶87

Ex.P15 is the printout of the promotional campaign by plaintiff by sign boards and truck advertisements for the period 2021 to 2022.

¶88

Ex.P16 is the printout of the Clippings of Television advertisement campaign of plaintiff product.

¶89

Ex.P17 is the printout of the photographs of plaintiff's products and their carton boxes.

¶90

Ex.P18 (Series) (3 Nos) are the photocopy of the caution notices published by the plaintiff in South India Hosiery Manufacturer's Association Bulletin for the period March 2021 to December 2021.

¶91

Ex.P19 is the photocopy of the plaintiff Chennai branch – Rent Agreement dated 14.10.2021.

¶92

Ex.P20 is the printout of the employees provident fund for the period January 2022.

¶93

Ex.P21 is the photocopy of the defendant – POOMAK purchase bill dated 28.02.2022.

¶94

Ex.P22 is the printout of the web extract of GST Registration particulars of the defendant dated

¶95

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

¶96

8/25

¶97

C.S.(Comm.Div) No.137 of 2022

¶98

02.03.2022.

¶99

Ex.P23 is the photocopy of the complaint letter received by plaintiff from one of their distributors dated 03.03.2022.

¶100

Ex.P24 is the photocopy of the purchase order copies received by the plaintiff for the period 08.03.2022 to 11.03.2022.

¶101

Ex.P25 is the photocopy of the “POOMEX” - Dealer Complaint letter against defendant dated 14.03.2022.

¶102

Ex.P26 is the original Chartered Accountant Turnover certificate dated 16.03.2022.

¶103

Ex.P27 is the photocopy of the Cease & Desist notice issued by the plaintiff along with postal acknowledgment dated 18.03.2022.

¶104

Ex.P28 is the original reply notice dated 26.03.2022.

¶105

Ex.P29 is the printout of the E-Register status of defendant's trademark application filed under No.5094313 in class 25 dated 14.04.2022.

¶106

Ex.P30 is the original defendant – POOMAK purchase bill dated 27.05.2022.

¶107

Ex.P31 is the printout of the entry extracts GST certificate with branch details dated 11.06.2022.

¶108

Ex.P32 is the printout of the defendant –

¶109

POOMAK product and product box photographs.

¶110

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

¶111

9/25

¶112

C.S.(Comm.Div) No.137 of 2022

¶113

Ex.P33 is the photocopy of the caution notice

¶114

issued by plaintiff dated 23.06.2022.

¶115

The plaintiff's witness (PW1) was also cross-examined by the

¶116

defendant's counsel. However, the defendant chose not to let in any oral evidence on their side.

¶117

With regard to territorial jurisdiction of this Court to decide this

¶118

suit, the learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that the plaintiff is having its office at Chennai and is also carrying on its business at

¶119

Chennai. The infringed goods are being sold by the defendant at Chennai. However, to disprove the same, there is no contra evidence produced by the defendant. Hence, under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, this Court is having jurisdiction to decide the suit.

¶120

He would further submit that the trademark of the defendant

¶121

'Poomak' is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'Poomex'. Both the marks are phonetically similar, hence, the defendant cannot be allowed to use the mark 'Poomak'. He would also submit that

¶122

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

¶123

10/25

¶124

C.S.(Comm.Div) No.137 of 2022

¶125

the defendant is also dealing with a similar product as that of the plaintiff, namely, manufacture and sale of undergarments. He would further submit that the plaintiff had filed an opposition petition before the Trademark Registry opposing registration of the trademark 'Poomak'. But, the defendant had not filed counter to the said opposition petition and hence, the Trademark Registry had passed an order stating that the request for grant of trademark registration for the mark 'Poomak' by the defendant has been abandoned. To substantiate his contentions, he drew the attention of this Court to the relevant documents as well as relevant orders passed by the Trademark Registry.

¶126

10. The learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that with the

¶127

consent of the plaintiff, the mark 'Poomer' is being used by one of the brothers of the partner of the plaintiff. He would also submit that as per the family arrangement, the plaintiff's partner's brother was allowed to use the mark 'Poomer' and therefore, the defence raised by the defendant in their written statement stating that a similar mark 'Poomer' is already in existence, has no value for the defendant's defence.

¶128

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

¶129

11/25

¶130

C.S.(Comm.Div) No.137 of 2022

¶131

11. The learned counsel for the plaintiff also drew the attention of

¶132

this Court to the various registrations obtained by the plaintiff for its trademark 'Poomex' and also drew the attention of this Court to the relevant documents (exhibits) to substantiate the plaintiff's contention that they have been using the mark 'Poomex' from 2003 onwards. He would submit that since the mark 'Poomak' is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'Poomex', which has acquired distinctiveness and is associated only with the plaintiff, the question of permitting the defendant to use the mark 'Poomak' does not arise. He would further submit that the trademark 'Poomex' has to be read as a whole and cannot be dissected. He would submit that 'Poomex' is an arbitrary word and has been coined only by the plaintiff and therefore, the same will have to be associated only with the plaintiff.

¶133

12. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the plaintiff drew the attention of this Court to the following authorities:-

¶134

(a) A judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parle Products (P) Ltd. Vs. J.P. And Co., Mysore [(1972) 1 SCC 618];

¶135

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

¶136

12/25

¶137

C.S.(Comm.Div) No.137 of 2022

¶138

(b) A decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cadila

¶139

Health Care Ltd. Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [AIR 2001 SC 1952 ]; and (c) a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Neuberg Hitech Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dr.Ganesan's Hitech Diagnostice Centre Pvt Ltd. (2022 SCC Online Mad 8779).

¶140

13. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant would reiterate the contents of the written statement filed by the defendant, namely, (a) This Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the suit, since no part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court; (b) The mark 'Poomak' and 'Poomex' are not deceptively similar; and (c) The mark 'Poomer' is already in the market, and therefore, the question of stopping the defendant to use the mark 'Poomak' does not arise.

¶141

DISCUSSION:-

¶142

14. With regard to territorial jurisdiction of this Court, it is to be noted that the plaintiff is having its office at Chennai, within the jurisdiction of this Court, eventhough their principal place of business is

¶143

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

¶144

13/25

¶145

C.S.(Comm.Div) No.137 of 2022

¶146

elsewhere. The plaintiff has filed invoices raised by the defendant at

¶147

Chennai, which would reveal that the defendant has been selling their products under the mark 'Poomak' at Chennai. In the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witness, they have not raised any question with regard to invoices, which were marked as exhibits on the side of the plaintiff. Therefore, the defence raised by the defendant in their written statement with regard to territorial jurisdiction of this Court cannot be sustained as per Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act as the defendant carrying on

¶148

business at Chennai is also within the jurisdiction of this Court.

¶149

15. The following are the undisputed facts:-

¶150

(a) The plaintiff is a leading player in the manufacture and sale of

¶151

undergarments in India.

¶152

(b) Admittedly, their turnover is much higher than the defendant. They have also disclosed their sales turnover and the advertisement costs

¶153

incurred by them for promoting their products under their trademark

¶154

'Poomex', which reveals they have a huge turnover.

¶155

¶156

trademark 'Poomex' under Classes 24 and 25 as early as in 2003 itself

¶157

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

¶158

14/25

¶159

C.S.(Comm.Div) No.137 of 2022

¶160

and they are in the market by using the said mark since then.

¶161

(d) 'Poomex' is not a dictionary word and it is not a word used in

¶162

normal parlance and therefore, it can be inferred that the same would have been coined only by the plaintiff.

¶163

(e) The defendant has chosen not to let in any oral evidence for the reasons best known to them.

¶164

16. In the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, namely, Neuberg Hitech Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. (cited supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court has extracted four different categories of terms, namely, generic, descriptive, suggestive, arbitrary or fanciful, with respect to trademark protection, from the landmark judgment of the US Court of Appeals in Abercrombie & Fitch Company Vs. Hunting

¶165

World Incorporated, 537 F.2d 4 (2d Cir. 1976), and they are as follows:-

¶166

“ The cases, and in some instances the Lanham Act, identify four different categories of terms with respect to trademark protection. Arrayed in an ascending order which roughly reflects their eligibility to trademark status and the degree of protection accorded, these classes are (1) generic, (2) descriptive, (3) suggestive, (4) arbitrary or fanciful. The lines of

¶167

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

¶168

15/25

¶169

C.S.(Comm.Div) No.137 of 2022

¶170

demarcation, however, are not always bright...”

¶171

In the case on hand, since the plaintiff's trademark 'Poomex' is an arbitrary trademark, necessarily, the plaintiff is entitled for absolute and unconditional protection as held in the aforesaid decision of the US Court of Appeals. As observed earlier, 'Poomex' is not a dictionary word and certainly it is an arbitrary word and since the mark in question is the only mark available in the market, it can also be inferred that it was coined only by the plaintiff.

¶172

17. In another decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, namely, Cadila Health Care Ltd (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it clear that phonetic similarity between the marks cannot be jettisoned. Admittedly, when 'Poomex', an arbitrary word coined by the plaintiff, is a unique name, which has acquired distinctiveness and associated only with the plaintiff by its long usage from 2003 onwards, the question of permitting the defendant to use the mark 'Poomak', which is phonetically similar to the plaintiff's mark 'Poomex', does not arise, as phonetic similarity cannot be jettisoned as

¶173

held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision.

¶174

18. In Parle Products (P) Ltd. (cited supra) , the Hon'ble Supreme

¶175

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

¶176

16/25

¶177

C.S.(Comm.Div) No.137 of 2022

¶178

Court has made it clear that in an infringement suit, it would be enough if

¶179

the impugned mark bears such an overall similarity to the registered mark as would be likely to mislead a person usually dealing with one to accept the other if offered to him. In the case on hand, by considering the trademark 'Poomex' as a whole, this Court finds that usage of the mark 'Poomak' by the defendant would amount to committing an act of infringement and passing off.

¶180

19. During cross-examination, PW1 deposed that only with the consent of the plaintiff and on account of the family arrangement, one of the brothers of the partner of the plaintiff has been allowed to use the mark 'Poomer'. Since sufficient explanation has been given for use of the mark 'Poomer', the question of allowing the defendant to use the mark 'Poomak' on the ground that there has been usage of the mark 'Poomer' by a third party in the market does not arise, and the said contention has to be rejected.

¶181

20. Insofar as the act of infringement and passing off committed by the defendant is concerned, the plaintiff has proved through pleadings,

¶182

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

¶183

17/25

¶184

C.S.(Comm.Div) No.137 of 2022

¶185

oral and documentary evidence as stated supra. However, insofar as damage claim made by the plaintiff is concerned, they have not let in any oral and documentary evidence to prove damages, which is admittedly an unliquidated claim. In order to claim damages, the said claim should be supported by oral and documentary evidence. As seen from the evidence available on record, the plaintiff has not let in any iota of evidence to prove that they are entitled for damages as prayed for. But, being a commercial suit and having committed an act of infringement and passing off, realistic costs will have to be imposed by this Court against the defendant. Section 35 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) as applicable to Commercial Courts Act, 2015, empowers this Court to impose realistic costs on the defendant, which includes (i) t he fees and expenses of the witnesses incurred; (ii) legal fees and expenses incurred; and (iii) any other expenses incurred in connection with the proceedings. Therefore, this Court, after giving due consideration to the fact that the defendant has committed an act of infringement and passing off, deems it fit to award Rs.1,00,000/- as costs on the defendant, which is payable to the plaintiff.

¶186

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

¶187

18/25

¶188

C.S.(Comm.Div) No.137 of 2022

¶189

The plaintiff has proved that they are entitled for a decree as

¶190

prayed for in paragraph No.31(a), (b) & (c) of the plaint, but, however, insofar as prayer (d) of para 31 is concerned, a direction is issued to the defendant to surrender to the plaintiff for destruction of all products, labels, dyes, blocks, moulds, screen prints, packing materials and other materials bearing the trademark 'Poomak' identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark 'Poomax', in case they are still possessing the same, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶191

Insofar as the damage claim of Rs.25,00,000/- as prayed for in paragraph 31(e) of the plaint is concerned, in view of the reasons stated supra, for want of evidence, the suit claim for damages is rejected by this Court.

¶192

For the foregoing reasons, issues (a), (b), (c) and (d) framed by this Court supra are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Issue (e) pertaining to damages is answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant by rejecting the said claim for

¶193

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

¶194

19/25

¶195

C.S.(Comm.Div) No.137 of 2022

¶196

damages. In the result, the suit is partly decreed as per the aforementioned terms disclosed in paragraph 21 with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- payable by the defendant to the plaintiff within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶197

16.12.2024

¶198

Index: Yes/ No Speaking order / Non speaking order Neutral citation : Yes / No rkm

¶199

Plaintiff's witness:-

¶200

Mr.C.Gokulakrishnan - PW1

¶201

Documents exhibited by the plaintiff:-

¶202

Ex.P1 is the original authorization letter dated 22.08.2023.

¶203

Ex.P2 is the photocopy of the certificate of Registration of Trademark POOMEX under application No. 1231782 in class 24 along with Legal User Certificate dated 31.05.2005.

¶204

Ex.P3 is the photocopy of the Certificate of Registration of Trademark POOMEX under application No. 1231783 in class 24 along with Legal User Certificate dated 31.05.2005.

¶205

Ex.P4 is the photocopy of the IEC – Importer

¶206

20/25

¶207

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

¶208

C.S.(Comm.Div) No.137 of 2022

¶209

Exporter Code Certificate with Branch & Amendment Details dated 10.08.2005.

¶210

Ex.P5 is the photocopy of the Tamilnadu Commercial Tax Registration Certificate dated 01.01.2007.

¶211

Ex.P6 is the photocopy of the Certificate of Registration of Trademark POOMEX under application No. 1374330 in class 25 along with certified copy of the Legal User Certificate dated 05.06.2007.

¶212

Ex.P7 is the original Deed of Partnership dated 01.04.2011.

¶213

Ex.P8 is the photocopy of the plaintiff newspaper publication – Caution Notice on Daily Thanthi dated 11.01.2014.

¶214

Ex.P9 is the photocopy of the Government of Tamilnadu Firm Registration Certificate Registration No. 457/2015 & Entry Extracts dated 10.06.2015.

¶215

Ex.P10 is the printout of the Income Tax Returns filed by the plaintiff company for the Financial years 2017 – 2018 to 2021 – 2022.

¶216

Ex.P11 is the printout of the plaintiff's distributors list.

¶217

Ex.P12 (Series) (29 Nos) are the photocopy of the plaintiff sales Invoices including offline sales, online sales and foreign countries sales in the period of 2017 to 2022.

¶218

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

¶219

21/25

¶220

C.S.(Comm.Div) No.137 of 2022

¶221

Ex.P13 is the printout of the plaintiff promotional materials purchase bills and invoices issued by television networks for the period 2019 to 2022.

¶222

Ex.P14 (Series) (58 Nos) are the photocopy of the plaintiff's product advertisement features in various Tamil Dailies and Magazines for the period 2021 to 2022.

¶223

Ex.P15 is the printout of the promotional campaign by plaintiff by sign boards and truck advertisements for the period 2021 to 2022.

¶224

Ex.P16 is the printout of the Clippings of Television advertisement campaign of plaintiff product.

¶225

Ex.P17 is the printout of the photographs of plaintiff's products and their carton boxes.

¶226

Ex.P18 (Series) (3 Nos) are the photocopy of the caution notices published by the plaintiff in South India Hosiery Manufacturer's Association Bulletin for the period March 2021 to December 2021.

¶227

Ex.P19 is the photocopy of the plaintiff Chennai branch – Rent Agreement dated 14.10.2021.

¶228

Ex.P20 is the printout of the employees provident fund for the period January 2022.

¶229

Ex.P21 is the photocopy of the defendant – POOMAK purchase bill dated 28.02.2022.

¶230

Ex.P22 is the printout of the web extract of GST Registration particulars of the defendant dated

¶231

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

¶232

22/25