Dismissed¶62

Lacoste Sa and another v. Kandhan Traders and 3 others

Madras HC18 Aug 2025C.S(COMM DIV)/186/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court Commercial Division suit C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.186 of 2025 dismissed as withdrawn without costs on 18.08.2025; plaintiffs Lacoste S.A. and Gant AB withdrew trademark infringement, passing off and copyright infringement claims against Tiruppur-based defendants Kandhan Traders and Shantex; connected applications O.A.Nos.748 to 753 of 2025 and A.Nos.3526 & 3527 of 2025 closed; no adjudication of issues, no precedents cited; counsel: Ms.Shivani Nadesan for Mr.Arun C.Mohan; bench: Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy.

What did the court decide?

The Court dismissed C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.186 of 2025 as withdrawn, without any order as to costs, and consequently closed the connected applications, upon the plaintiffs' counsel reporting instructions to withdraw the suit with an endorsement made to that effect. ¶62

Lacoste Sa and another Vs Kandhan Traders and 3 others — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.186 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 18.08.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.186 of 2025 and O.A.Nos.748 to 753 of 2025 and A.Nos.3526 & 3527 of 2025

¶7

1.LACOSTE S.A

¶8

8, rue de Castiglione – 75001, Paris, France. Having store at: Shop No.S-051 & 52, Ground Floor, Express Avenue Mall, No.49 – 50 L, Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 014 Represented by its Constituted Attorney Mr.Anand Arya

¶9

2.GANT AB PO Box 27021, 102 51, Stockholm, Sweden, Having Store at: 35JW and 8QJ, VR Mall, Thirumangalam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 040 Represented by its Constituted Attorney Mr.Anand Arya

... Plaintiffs

-vs-

1/9

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

¶14

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.186 of 2025

¶15

1.KANDHAN TRADERS

¶16

37, Bridgeway Colony Extension, Lakshmi Nagar Main Road, Tiruppur – 641 607, Tamil Nadu.

¶17

2.SHANTEX

¶18

#43, Iyappan 2^nd Street, Kumarnathapuram South, Tiruppur – 641 602, Tamil Nadu.

¶19

... Defendants

¶20

PRAYER : Civil Suit (Commercial Division) filed under Order VII Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 And Order IV Rule 1 of O.S.Rules, 1956 Read With Section 7 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Read With Sections 27, 28, 29, 134 & 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 And Sections 51 & 55 of

¶21

the Copyrights Act, 1957, praying to grant a judgment and decree on the following terms:-

¶22

(a) Permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, themselves, their directors / partners / proprietors as the case may be, heirs, legal representatives, successors-in-business, assigns, servants, agents, distributors, stockists, wholesalers, retailers, transporters, representatives, or any other person acting for or on their behalf or claiming under or through them, from infringing the 1st Plaintiff's registered trademarks “LACOSTE”,

¶23

2/9

¶24

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

¶25

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.186 of 2025

¶26

and Logo contained in Trademark Nos 400265, 610604, 3532017 by manufacturing, marketing, packaging, distributing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, or dealing in any manner whatsoever in goods bearing the 1st Plaintiff's registered trademarks or using any package, wrapper, container, label, colour scheme, get-up, layout, or trade dress that is identical or deceptively similar to that of the 1st Plaintiff;

¶27

(b) Permanent injunction restraining the Defendants themselves, their

¶28

directors / partners / proprietors as the case may be, heirs, legal representatives, successors-in-business, assigns, servants, agents, distributors, stockists, wholesalers, retailers, transporters, representatives, or any other person acting for or on their behalf or claiming under or through them, from directly or indirectly, passing off or enabling others to pass off their products as and for those of the 1st Plaintiff by using the mark LACOSTE, the crocodile device/logo, or any other mark, logo, name, label, packaging, colour scheme, website, or trade description identical with or deceptively similar to the 1st Plaintiff's marks, thereby misrepresenting origin, sponsorship, or affiliation in any other manner whatsoever;

¶29

¶30

3/9

¶31

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

¶32

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.186 of 2025

¶33

directors / partners / proprietors as the case may be, heirs, legal representatives, successors-in-business, assigns, servants, agents, distributors, stockists, wholesalers, retailers, transporters, representatives, or any other person acting for or on their behalf or claiming under or through them, from in any manner infringing the 1st Plaintiff's copyright in the artistic works LACOSTE, the crocodile device/logo, or any logo by use of a similar logo bearing the artistic works LACOSTE, which is an imitation of the 1st Plaintiff and rsquo;s said artistic works or in any other manner whatsoever;

¶34

(d) Permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, themselves, their directors / partners / proprietors as the case may be, heirs, legal representatives, successors-in-business, assigns, servants, agents, distributors, stockists, wholesalers, retailers, transporters, representatives, or any other person acting for or on their behalf or claiming under or through them, from infringing the 2nd Plaintiff's registered trademarks GANT, and Logo contained in Trademark Nos. 1262214, 2272933 by manufacturing, marketing, packaging, distributing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, or dealing in any manner whatsoever in goods bearing the 2nd Plaintiff's

¶35

4/9

¶36

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

¶37

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.186 of 2025

¶38

registered trademarks or using any package, wrapper, container, label, colour scheme, get-up, layout, or trade dress that is identical or deceptively similar to that of the 2nd Plaintiff;

¶39

(e) Permanent injunction restraining the Defendants themselves, their directors / partners / proprietors as the case may be, heirs, legal representatives, successors-in-business, assigns, servants, agents, distributors, stockists, wholesalers, retailers, transporters, representatives, or any other person acting for or on their behalf or claiming under or through them, from directly or indirectly, passing off or enabling others to pass off their products as and for those of the 2nd Plaintiff by using the mark GANT and or any other mark, logo, name, label, packaging, colour scheme, website, or trade description identical with or deceptively similar to the 2nd Plaintiff's marks, thereby misrepresenting origin, sponsorship, or affiliation in any other manner whatsoever;

¶40

(f) Permanent injunction restraining the Defendants themselves, their directors / partners / proprietors as the case may be, heirs, legal representatives, successors-in-business, assigns, servants, agents, distributors, stockists, wholesalers, retailers, transporters, representatives, or

¶41

5/9

¶42

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

¶43

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.186 of 2025

¶44

any other person acting for or on their behalf or claiming under or through them, from in any manner infringing the 2nd Plaintiff's copyright in the artistic works GANT, or any label by use of a similar label bearing the artistic work GANT, which is an imitation of the 2nd Plaintiff's said artistic works or in any other manner whatsoever;

¶45

(g) A preliminary decree in favour of the Plaintiffs directing the

¶46

Defendants by himself, his partners / proprietors, heirs, legal representatives, successors in business, assigns, servants, agents, distributors, and all persons claiming under or through it to deliver up to the Plaintiff for destruction all infringing material bearing the Plaintiff's trademark / label or any other word / mark which may be identical with or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs' registered trade mark / label / trade name including its dyes, blocks, moulds, machines, labels, packaging, and all such material that bear or incorporate the impugned marks/trade names/labels similar to that of the Plaintiff's registered mark/label for the purposes of destruction and erasure;

¶47

(h) For an order for rendition of accounts of profits earned by the

¶48

6/9

¶49

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

¶50

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.186 of 2025

¶51

Defendants by their impugned illegal trade activities and a decree for the

¶52

amount so found in favor of the Plaintiffs on such rendition of accounts.

¶53

(i) In the alternative, for the decree of grant of damages, the

¶54

Defendants be ordered to pay to the Plaintiff, a sum of in the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh only).

¶55

(j) For an order for entire cost of proceedings.

¶56

For Plaintiff : Ms.Shivani Nadesan for Mr.Arun C.Mohan

¶57

¶58

JUDGMENT

¶59

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that she has been instructed

¶60

to withdraw the suit. An endorsement has been made for the said purpose.

¶61

Therefore, C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.186 of 2025 is dismissed as

¶62

withdrawn without any order as to costs. Consequently, the connected

¶63

7/9

¶64

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

¶65

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.186 of 2025

¶66

applications are closed.

¶67

18.08.2025

¶68

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

¶69

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J

¶70

rna

¶71

8/9

¶72

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

¶73

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.186 of 2025

¶74

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.186 of 2025 and O.A.Nos.748 to 753 of 2025 and A.Nos.3526 & 3527 of 2025

¶75

18.08.2025

¶76

9/9

¶77

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

Lacoste Sa and another v. Kandhan Traders and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lacoste Sa and another v. Kandhan Traders and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Applause Entertainment Private Limited Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

S Giridharan Vs S Sudhakar

Island Oil Limited Vs Owners and Parties Interested

Mr M Anees Ahmed Sole Proprietor Ms Ambur Star Briyani Vs Ambur Star Briyani

M/s V2 Constructions Vs Rajeshuwari and 2 others

G B Pachaiyappan and Another Vs Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam and another