Dismissed

Ravr Industries Private Limited v. Brothers Enterprises

Madras HC20 Jun 2024C.S(COMM DIV)/89/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A commercial suit alleging infringement of photographic-image copyrights and registered trademarks HEX-COMB, DRI-WIK, SOXCO and SWAGR against e-commerce sellers and platforms. All defendants were set ex-parte or deleted, but the plaintiff failed to file proof affidavit for ex-parte evidence despite opportunity, so the court dismissed the suit for default with no costs and closed connected applicat

What did the court decide?

None; suit dismissed for default, connected applications closed, no costs.

Ravr Industries Private Limited Vs Brothers Enterprises — Intellectual Property | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.S. (Comm. Div.) No.89 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 20.06.2024

¶4

Coram:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶6

C.S. (Comm. Div.) No.89 of 2023 and O.A.No.334 and 335 of 2023 and

¶7

A.No.2339 of 2023

¶8

RAVR INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED Represented by its Director Having registered office at Plot No.37, Venkateswara Nagar Perungudi, Neelankarai West, Chennai - 600 096 ... Plaintiff

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Brothers Enterprises Represented by its Authorised Person Mr.Vishal Gupta KH No.75/87, Nehru Enclave, Near Corporation Bank, New Delhi - 110036 Also at, F.No.205, Hiline Complex Road No.13, ,Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telengana - 500 034

¶11

Also at, Khasra No.115, Ground Floor, Alkpur, Delhi-110 036

¶12

1/8

¶13

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

¶14

C.S. (Comm. Div.) No.89 of 2023

¶15

Usha Traders,

¶16

Represented by its authorised person Ms.Usha Devi Gurdas Vaishno Dhaba, UG, Old No.WZ 16A, WZ 25 PNo.26, Gali Number, Sant Nagar, New Delhi - 110018

¶17

Also at

¶18

7/8, 7 Block, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi - 110018

¶19

KANCHAN alias BRIJLON INDUSTRIES alias Brijdeed Industries Rep. by its authorised person SURENDER SINGH 421, First Floor, Pocket-9, Sector-21 Rohini, Bengumpur, North West Delhi, Delhi - 110086

¶20

Also at

¶21

E-31, Sector 4, Bawana, New Delhi - 110039

¶22

NAVIA INDIA

¶23

Rep. by its authorised person NAVEEN KUMAR D2/303, Kingbury Apartment, Tdi City Kundli, Delhi - 131028

¶24

AMAZON SELLER SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED Through its India Head Having office at 8th Floor, Bridge Gate Way 26/1 Bridge Ward Trade Center

¶25

Dr.Rajkumar Road, Bangalore-560055

¶26

(5th defendant deleted as per order dated 09.10.2023 & 31.10.2023 in C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.89/2023 & O.A.Nos.334 to 337/2023 and A.Nos.2339 & 5230 of 2023)

¶27

2/8

¶28

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

¶29

C.S. (Comm. Div.) No.89 of 2023

¶30

FLIPKART INTERNET PRIVATE LIMITED Buildings Alyssa Begonia and Clover, Embassy Tech Village, Outer Ring Road Devarabeesanahalli Village Bengaluru - 560103 (6th defendant deleted as per order dated 09.10.2023 in A.No.5230/2023 and time extended as per order dated 31.10.2023 in C.S.(Com.Div.) No.89/2023 & O.A.Nos.334 to 337/2023 and A.No.5230/2023 & A.No.2339/2023)

¶31

FASHNEAR TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED 06-105-C, 06-102, (138 WU) Vaishnavi Signature No.78/9, Outer Ring Road, Bellandur, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru-560103 (7th defendant deleted as per order dated 31.10.2023 in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.89/2023 & O.A.No.334 to 337/2023 & A.No.5230/2023 and A.No.2339 /2023.

¶32

... Defendants

¶33

Prayer : The plaint is filed under Order IV Rule 1 of O.S. Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C. 1908, read with Sections 55(1) of the Copyrights Act, 1957, read with, Sections 134, 135, 27 & 29 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 and Sections 2(1)(c) and 7 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, praying to pass judgment and decree against the defendants on the following terms:

¶34

3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

C.S. (Comm. Div.) No.89 of 2023

¶36

i. Pass a decree for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants No. 1 to 4 by itself, its proprietors, partners, officers, servants, representatives, stockists, dealers, agents, licensees, franchisees, distributors, dealers and all other persons claiming under or through them or acting in concert with them or otherwise howsoever from infringing the altered, modified, morphed, transformed and converted photographic images owned by the plaintiff in any of Defendant's products made available for sale e-commerce market and in any manner whatsoever;

¶37

ii. Pass a decree for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants No. 1 to 4 by itself, its proprietors, partners, officers, servants, representatives, stockists, dealers, agents, licensees, franchisees, distributors, dealers and all other persons claiming under or through them or acting in concert with them or otherwise howsoever from infringing Plaintiff's registered Trade Marks namely HEXCOMB, DRI-WIK, SOXCO and SWAGR bearing Trade Mark Nos.4198375, 4198374, 4209201 and 4922307 respectively in any of their product made available for sale e-commerce market and in any manner whatsoever;

¶38

iii. Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants 5, 6 and 7 from listing the infringing products of the Defendants 1-4 on the website www.amazon.in, www.flipkart.com and www.

¶39

4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

C.S. (Comm. Div.) No.89 of 2023

¶41

meesho.com respectively;

¶42

iv. Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants 5, 6 and 7 from listing the infringing products brought to their attention by the Plaintiff which they may come across even in the future, in respect of Plaintiff's copyright relating to the photographic image Plaintiff's registered Trademarks namely HEX-COMB, DRI-WIK, SOXCO and SWAGR bearing Trade Mark Nos.4198375, 4198374, 4209201 and 4922307 respectively;

¶43

v. The Defendants 1 to 4 be ordered and decreed to pay to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as damages for infringement of the Plaintiff's copyright of the photographic images;

¶44

vi. The Defendants 1 to 4 be ordered and decreed to pay to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/as damages for infringement of the Plaintiff's Trademarks namely HEX-COMB, DRI-WIK, SOXCO and SWAGR bearing Trade Mark Nos.4198375, 4198374, 4209201 and 4922307 respectively;

¶45

vii. For an order of Rendition of Accounts of profits illegally earned by the Defendants 1 to 4 by sale of the Infringing Products and a decree for the amount so found due be passed in favour of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff undertakes to pay further court fees once the sum is ascertained on the Defendant's rendering true and correct accounts; and

¶46

5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

C.S. (Comm. Div.) No.89 of 2023

¶48

viii. Direct the Defendant to pay costs of the suit to the Plaintiff.

¶49

For Plaintiff : NA Defendants 1&3 : Set ex-parte on 19.12.2023 4th Defendant : Set ex-parte on 31.10.2023 2nd Defendant : Set ex-parte on 12.06.2024 Defendants 5&6 : Deleted vide order dated 09.10.2023 7th Defendant : Deleter vide order dated 31.10.2023

¶50

JUDGMENT

¶51

This Court by order dated 12.06.2024, had directed the plaintiff to

¶52

file proof affidavit for chief examination on or before 19.06.2024 for

¶53

recording ex-parte evidence. Though sufficient opportunity was given, the

¶54

plaintiff has not filed the proof affidavit to prove its case by examining any

¶55

witness.

¶56

6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶57

C.S. (Comm. Div.) No.89 of 2023

¶58

Therefore, the suit is dismissed for default. No costs.

¶59

Consequently, connected applications are closed.

¶60

20.06.2024

¶61

Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No Neutral Case Citation : Yes/No Ksa-2

¶62

7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶63

C.S. (Comm. Div.) No.89 of 2023

¶64

P.VELMURUGAN. J.

¶65

Ksa-2

¶66

C.S. (Comm. Div.) No.89 of 2023 and O.A.No.334 and 335 of 2023 and A.No.2339 of 2023

¶67

20.06.2024

¶68

8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Ravr Industries Private Limited v. Brothers Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravr Industries Private Limited v. Brothers Enterprises

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 D.R.Raanka Bros., Vs Sri Sumangali Nagai Maaligai

Lyca Productions Private Limited Vs Vishal Krishna

Chakri Chigurupati Vs Spm Arts LLP and 5 others

Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. Vs M/s.Ammu Ice Cream

Salon Manthra Vs Max Hair Clinic Pvt. Ltd.

Salon Manthra Vs Max Hair Clinic Pvt. Ltd.