Mrf Limited rep by it authorized signatory Mr Jagadeesan Vs Pindi Tyres represented by its Proprietor Mr Jatinder Singh

¶1

O.A.Nos.1104 and 1105 of 2025 & A.Nos.5905 and 5906 of 2025

¶2

in C.S(Comm.Div)No.300 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 25.02.2026

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶7

O.A.Nos.1104 and 1105 of 2025 and A.Nos.5905 and 5906 of 2025 in C.S(Comm.Div)No.300 of 2025

¶8

M/s.MRF Limited Having Registered Office at No.114, Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006 rep. By its Authorised Signatory Mr.Jagadeesan M.P. Manager – Marketing Trade Operations ... Applicant in all applications

¶9

vs.

¶10

M/s.Pindi Tyres represented by its Proprietor Mr.Jatinder Singh, 93-63-64, Haryana Motor Market, G.T. Road, Ambala City, Haryana – 134 003. … Respondent in all applications

¶11

Prayer in O.A.No.1104 of 2025: Original Application is filed to grant an

¶12

interim injunction restraining the respondent, its distributors, stockists, servants, agents, retailers, representatives or any other person claiming under/through them from in any manner using or infringing the

¶13

1/5

¶14

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

¶15

O.A.Nos.1104 and 1105 of 2025 & A.Nos.5905 and 5906 of 2025 in C.S(Comm.Div)No.300 of 2025 Applicant’s Registered Trade Marks ‘MRF’, ‘MRF Connected Letter

¶16

Device’, the MRF Muscleman device and/or MRF Dealer Board by using the said trademarks or any other mark, identical with and/or deceptively similar to the MRF Corporate Trademarks/Artistic Works and MRF Dealer Board in connection with the tyre dalership business of the Respondent or in any other manner whatosever till the pendency of the suit.

¶17

Prayer in O.A.No.1105 of 2025: Original Application is filed to grant an interim injunction restraining the respondent, its distributors, stockists, servants, agents, retailers, representatives or any other person claiming under/through them from in any manner infringing the Applicant’s Copyright in the ‘MRF CONNECTED LETTER DEVICE’ filed as Plaint Document or ‘MRF MUSCLEMAN DEVICE’ filed as Plaint Document or the MRF Dealer Board filed as Plaint Document, by using the above mentioned Artistic Works or any substantial reproduction of the same on or in connection with the business of the respondent, or in any other manner whatsoever till the pendency of the suit.

¶18

2/5

¶19

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

¶20

O.A.Nos.1104 and 1105 of 2025 & A.Nos.5905 and 5906 of 2025 in C.S(Comm.Div)No.300 of 2025

¶21

For Applicant : Mr.R.Karthikeyan in all applications

¶22

COMMON ORDER

¶23

At the hearing on 01.12.2025, an order of ad interim injunction was

¶24

granted in both the original applications. Notice was ordered to the respondent, including private notice. The plaintiff filed affidavit of service dated 05.01.2026 enclosing the returned postal covers with the endorsement “refused”. Therefore, the Registry was directed to print the name of the respondent in the cause list for today’s hearing. This order was issued on 05.01.2026. On 02.02.2026, fresh notice was ordered through Court returnable on 25.02.2026. Court notice has also been returned unserved with the endorsement “refused”.

¶25

In order dated 01.12.2025, it was recorded, in relevant part, as

¶26

under:

¶27

“2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the defendant is carrying on retail business in tyres and that the defendant was never a dealer of the plaintiff. By referring to the impugned trade mark and copyright used by the defendant in relation to an identical

¶28

3/5

¶29

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

¶30

O.A.Nos.1104 and 1105 of 2025 & A.Nos.5905 and 5906 of 2025 in C.S(Comm.Div)No.300 of 2025 business, learned counsel submits that the defendant has unlawfully used the plaintiff’s trade mark and copyright. Learned counsel also submits that a cease and desist notice was issued before filing the suit and that such notice was refused. He also submits that the pre institution mediation failed on account of the defendant’s refusal to participate.

¶31

3. On examining the above documents, particularly documents containing a depiction of the impugned trade mark and copyright, a strong prima facie case is made out. Therefore, orders of ad interim injunction as prayed for in O.A.Nos.1104 & 1105 of 2025 are granted until the next date of hearing.”

¶32

For the above reasons and in view of the refusal of the defendant

¶33

to receive notice and enter appearance, the orders of ad interim injunction are made absolute and both O.A.Nos.1104 & 1105 of 2025 are allowed as prayed for. The plaintiff is permitted to communicate this order to the defendant.

¶34