The court accepted a joint compromise memo signed by both parties in a suit for trademark infringement. The suit was decreed as per the terms of the compromise, and connected applications were closed without awarding costs.
Suit decreed as per terms of the Joint Compromise Memo signed on 25.03.2024; no costs awarded.
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. (Comm. Div) No.35 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.03.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.S. (Comm. Div) No.35 of 2024 and
O.A. No.121 of 2024
and
A. No.1013 of 2024
M/s. SANGEETHA CATERERS AND CONSULTANTS LLP Represented by its Designated Partners: 1. Mr. P. Rajagopal 2. Mr. P. Suresh
...Plaintiff
vs.
M/s. SANGEETHAM House of Veg Rep. by its Proprietor: S. NIMESH EDWIN No. 19, D5, Tuticorin Main Road, Veerapandianpattinam, Thiruchendur Pin Code: 628 216.
.... Defendant
Prayer : P LAINT FILED UNDER ORDER IV RULE 1 OF O.S. RULES AND ORDER VII RULE 1 OF CPC READ WITH SECTION 27, 134 AND 135 OF THE TRADEMARKS ACT 1999 & PROVISO 1 OF SECTION 7 OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015.
(A) a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their legal representatives, their successors in business, assigns, franchisees,
1/9
C.S. (Comm. Div) No.35 of 2024
servants or agents from operating the restaurant business by infringing the plaintiffs registered trademarks Sangeetha with Veena Mark, SVR Sangeetha Veg. Restaurant SVR, Sangeetha Veg. Restaurant (with a VEENA MARK). "SVR Sangeetha EXPRESS" and "Sangeetha Veg Express" or by use of confusingly similar or any other mark deceptively and identically similar to the Plaintiff's registered trademark or in any other manner whatsoever,
(B) a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their legal representatives, their successors in business, assigns, franchisees, servants or agents from operating restaurant business by the name "SANGEETHAM House of Veg with a logo "S" from committing the act of passing off and enabling others in passing off the restaurant business in the deceptively similar mark which is identical to the plaintiff's registered trademark in any manner whatsoever,
(C) the defendant be ordered to surrender to the plaintiff for destruction of all their packing containers, card board boxes, packing materials, covers and carry bags, screen prints, bills, sign boards, billing software, menu cards, and any other material in their possession bearing the mark "SANGEETHAM", House of Veg with a logo "S" which is identical to the plaintiff's registered trademark:
(D) directing the defendants to render the rendition of theirs accounts from the date of commencement of their restaurant till the date of filing of the plaint;
(E) the defendant be ordered to pay to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) as damages for their wrongful and illegal act by use of the registered trademark:
2/9
(F) for cost of the suit; and
(G) for such further and other reliefs.
C.S. (Comm. Div) No.35 of 2024
For Plaintiff : Mr.L.Rajasekar For Defendant : Mr.Vishnuram
JUDGMENT
Both the learned counsels on instructions have placed before this
Court a Memorandum of Compromise signed by the defendant and unsigned by the plaintiff. However, the learned counsel for the plaintiff on instructions would submit that the plaintiff is agreeable to the terms of compromise mentioned in the Joint Compromise Memo, dated 25.03.2024, signed by the defendant and counter-signed by the defendant's counsel.
2. Since both the parties have agreed to the terms contained in the Joint Compromise Memo, dated 25.03.2024 signed by both the parties and counter-signed by their respective counsels, the same is incorporated
below :
3/9
C.S. (Comm. Div) No.35 of 2024
4/9
C.S. (Comm. Div) No.35 of 2024
5/9
C.S. (Comm. Div) No.35 of 2024
6/9
C.S. (Comm. Div) No.35 of 2024
7/9
C.S. (Comm. Div) No.35 of 2024
3. In terms of the above Memorandum of Compromise, the suit is
decreed. No costs. Consequently, connected applications are closed.
26.03.2024
Index: Yes/ No Speaking order / Non speaking order Neutral citation : Yes / No vsi2
8/9
C.S. (Comm. Div) No.35 of 2024
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
vsi2
C.S. (Comm. Div) No.35 of 2024 and O.A. No.121 of 2024 and A. No.1013 of 2024
26.03.2024
9/9
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the plaintiffs' suit for injunction and damages regarding trademark infringement should be decreed based on a joint compromise memorial.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
None citedReferred
3 provisions across 3 enactments
M/s. SANGEETHA CATERERS AND CONSULTANTS LLP
M/s. SANGEETHAM House of Veg
Abdul Quddhose
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
