Disposed¶37

Mr R v. Vinoth Kumar v Manjal

Trade Marks Act, 1999 – Ss.134, 135

Madras HC7 Apr 2025C.S(COMM DIV)/34/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court Commercial Division, Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy J., 07.04.2025, C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.34 of 2025 with O.A.Nos.82 & 83 of 2025 and A.No.434 of 2025; trade mark infringement and passing off; MANJAL RESTAURANT vs MANJAL; suit closed on plaintiff's memo after defendant changed name and ceased use of impugned mark; liberty to file fresh suit on resumption of use; no costs; Trade Marks Act 1999 Sections 134 and 135; no merits adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Suit disposed of on the plaintiff's memo with liberty/leave to the plaintiff to re-apply (institute a fresh suit) in case the defendant resumes use of the impugned mark 'MANJAL'; no order as to costs; connected applications closed. ¶37

Mr R v Vinoth Kumar Vs Manjal — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.34 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 07.04.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.34 of 2025 and O.A.Nos.82 & 83 of 2025 and A.No.434 of 2025

¶7

Mr.R.V.Vinoth Kumar, Sole Proprietor of Manjal Restaurant, No.6/9, Kasturi Estate, 3^rd Street, Poes Garden, Chennai 600 018. ... Plaintiff

¶8

-vs-

¶9

Manjal Sri Kandy Farms, No.238, Part Uzhaipalar Street, Vellakinar Road, Vellakinar Village, Coimbatore 641 029. ... Defendant

¶10

PRAYER : Civil Suit (Commercial Division) filed under Order VII Rule 1

¶11

CPC And Order IV Rule 1 of O.S.Rules under Sections 134 and 135 of the

¶12

Trade Marks Act, 1999, praying to grant a judgment and decree on the following terms:-

¶13

1/5

¶14

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

¶15

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.34 of 2025

¶16

(a). Granting a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, their

¶17

men, servants, agents or anyone claiming through or under them from in any manner Infringing the Plaintiff Trade Mark and Trading style “ MANJAL RESTAURANT ” by using the offending Trade Mark and Trading style “ MANJAL ” or any other mark or marks which are similar or in any way deceptively similar to or a colourable imitation of the Plaintiffs Trade Mark

¶18

“ MANJAL RESTAURANT ”.

¶19

(b). Granting a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, their men, servants, agents or anyone claiming through or under them from in any manner Passing-off the Plaintiff Trade Mark and Trading style “ MANJAL RESTAURANT ” by using the offending Trade Mark and Trading style “ MANJAL ” or any other mark or marks which are similar or in any way deceptively similar to or a colourable imitation of the Plaintiffs Trade Mark

¶20

“ MANJAL RESTAURANT ”.

¶21

(c). Directing the Defendant to render a true and faithful account of the profits earned by them through the sale of food products bearing the offending trade mark “ MANJAL ” and directing payment of such profits to

¶22

2/5

¶23

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

¶24

Defendant.

¶25

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.34 of 2025

¶26

the Plaintiff by way of damages for Infringement committed by the Defendant.

¶27

(d). Directing to the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff the costs of the

¶28

suit.

¶29

For Plaintiff : Mr.M.Dhanush for Mr.Vijayan Subramanian

¶30

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

The suit was filed requesting for relief in respect of alleged infringement of trade mark and passing off relating to the plaintiff's trade mark MANJAL. An order of ad interim injunction was issued on 31.01.2025. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has filed memo dated 07.04.2025 today. In the memo, it is stated that the defendant has changed its name and stopped using the impugned mark MANJAL in relation to its restaurant business. In view thereof, the plaintiff prays that the suit be closed with liberty to the plaintiff to file a fresh suit in case of the use of the impugned mark in future by the defendant.

¶33

3/5

¶34

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

¶35

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.34 of 2025

¶36

By taking note of the memo, C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.34 of 2025 is

¶37

disposed of by granting leave to the plaintiff to re-apply in case the defendant resumes use of the impugned mark. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected applications are also closed.

¶38

07.04.2025

¶39

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

¶40

4/5

¶41

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

¶42

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.34 of 2025

¶43

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J