Madras High Court
Mr.Sunil Suresh vs M/S.Designo Lifestyle Solutions ... on 20 June, 2019
Author: Krishnan Ramasamy
Bench: Krishnan Ramasamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.06.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
C.S.Nos. 908 of 2016 and 693 of 2013 and A. No.191 of 2017
and
and O.A.Nos.1081,768 and 770 of 2018
C.S.No.908 of 2016
1. Mr.Sunil Suresh
2. Stanley Lifestyles Limited
12/7 Shama Rao Compound
Mission Road,
Bangalore-560 027. ... Plaintiffs
Vs.
M/s.Designo Lifestyle Solutions Private Ltd
21, (Old No.10), 3rd Street,
Off Khader Nawaz Khan Road
Wallace Garden, Chennai-600 006
Represented by its Director,
Mr.R.Ramakrishnan ... Defendant
PRAYER: Plaint under Order VII, Rule 1 CPC Read with Order IV
Rule 1 of the OS Rules of the Madras High Court, and Sections 11,
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
29, 134, 135 Trade Marks Act, 1999, praying for a Judgment and
Decree against the defendants (a) A decree of permanent injunction
restraining the Defendant's, their directors, employees, officers,
servants, agents and all others acting for and on their behalf from
operating any business, making selling, distributing, advertising,
exporting, offering for sale, and in any other manner, directly or
indirectly, any goods or services under the marks STANLEY
BEAUTIFUL LIVING, STANLEY COMFORT STUDIO, STANLEY
GENUINE LEATHER, STANLEY ROSS, STANLEY CUSTOMISED,
STANLEY BOUTIUE and especially the logo STANLEY /or any other
mark deceptively similar for any services including sale and
manufacture of furniture and car seat covers that amounts to
passing off of the goods and services of the Defendant as though
they are those of the Plaintiffs;
(B)To grant order of delivery up for destruction of all products,
brochures, printed material, all banners, labels, packing materials
and/or any material which contains the marks STANLEY BEAUTIFUL
LIVING, STANLEY COMFORT STUDIO, STANLEY GENUINE LEATHER,
STANLEY ROSS, STANLEY CUSTOMISED, STANLEY BOUTIQUE and
especially the logo STANLEY .
(C) To direct the Defendant to pay damages for sum of INR
25,10,000 or such higher amount as may be claimed by the Plaintiff
at a later date and as may be determined by this Hon'ble Court for
http://www.judis.nic.in
3
dilution and disparagement of Plaintiff's trademark, wrongful
channelization of Plaintiff's business and loss of profits and revenue.
(D) Costs and such other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit,
in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and
equity.
(E) A decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant's
their directors, employees, officers, servants, agents and all others
acting for and on their behalf from operating any business, making,
selling,distributing, advertising, exporting, offering for sale, and in
any other manner, directly or indirectly, any goods or services
under the marks STANLEY BEAUTIFUL LIVING, STANLEY COMFORT
STUDIO, STANLEY GENUINE LEATHER, STANLEY ROSS, STANLEY
CUSTOMISED, STANLEY BOUTIQUE and especially the logo
STANLEY / or any other mark deceptively similar for any services
including sale and manufacture of furniture and car seat covers
amounting to infringement of Plaintiff's registered trademarks
bearing nos.2091340, 1877876 and 1877877.
(F) A decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant,
their directors, employees, officers, servants, agents and all others
acting for and their behalf from operating any business, making,
selling, distributing, advertising, exporting, offering for sale, and in
any other manner, directly and indirectly any goods or services
using the Plaintiff's artistic work STANLEY in any manner in
http://www.judis.nic.in
4
relation to Defendant's goods and services or business that amounts
to infringement of copyright in Plaintiff's artistic work STANLEY .
For Plaintiff : Mr.Anand and Anand
For Defendants : Ms.Rithika Reddy
C.S.No.693 of 2013
M/s. Designo Lifestyle Solutions Private Ltd
21, (Old No.20), 3rd Street,
Off Khader Nawaz Khan Road
Wallace Garden, Chennai- 600 006
Represented by its Director,
Mr.R.Ramakrishnan ... Plaintiff
Vs
1. Stanley Boutique
Oyster,2nd floor, No.9,
Khader Nawaz Khan Road,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai 600 006.
2. Mr.Sunil Suresh ... Defendants
PRAYER: Plaint under Order IV, Rule 1 of O.S.Rules and Order VII
Rule 1 of CPC, praying for a Judgment and Decree against the
defendants (a) a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, by
themselves, their advertisers, their marketing agents, heirs, legal
http://www.judis.nic.in
5
representatives, successors in business, distributors,
representatives or any of them from circulating/advertising of the
impugned advertisement/circulation/pamphlet, issuing,
publishing/causing to publish, broadcast, telecast make available to
public any material containing a reference to the plaintiff's marks
SO FA SO GOOD and SIMPLY SOFAS in any form whatsoever in the
defendant's advertisements/commercials, sales promotion materials
or in any manner whatsoever;
b. a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, by
themselves, their partners, advertisers, their marketing agents,
heirs, legal representatives, successors in business, distributors,
representatives claiming under them or any of them from in manner
telecasting, otherwise publishing the disparaging advertisement or
any advertisements that in any manner disparages the plaintiff's
marks SOFA SO GOOD and SIMPLY SOFAS and its products by
offending tag line SIMPLY THE BEST or in any manner whatsoever;
c. a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, by themselves,
their advertisers, their marketing agents, heirs, legal
representatives, successors in business, distributors,
representatives claiming under them or any of them from in any
manner issuing any advertisement that make any claims of the
superiority of its products as compared to the plaintiff goods;
d. the defendant be ordered to surrender to the plaintiff for
destruction, the production Master copy, CDs, DVDs, video & audio
casettes and the Artworks/advertisement material of the impugned
advertisements.
http://www.judis.nic.in
6
e. damages to the tune of Rs.10,00,00/- for the loss of sale and
revenue or such higher amount as may be claimed by the plaintiff at
a later date and as may be determined by this Court upon enquiry.
For Plaintiff : Ms.Rithika Reddy
For Defendants : Mr.M.S.Bharath
COMMON JUDGMENT
When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for Plaintiff in C.S.No.908 of 2016 has filed a Memo of Compromise dated 17.06.2019, stating that in view of compromise arrived at between the parties, the parties in both the suits agrees to withdrew the above two suits. Hence, the learned counsel for the Plaintiff in both the suits seek permission of this Court to withdraw their respective suits. They have also made the following endorsements in their respective suits:
In C.S.No.908 of 2016"Upon instructions from the Plaintiff, and as per M.O.C. dated 17/06/2019, I may be permitted to withdraw the suit."In C.S.No.693 of 2013
http://www.judis.nic.in 7 "Upon instructions from the Plaintiff and as per MOC dated 17.062019. I may please be permitted to withdraw the suit."
2. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Plaintiff and also in view of the endorsement made, these suits are dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.
Consequently, connected applications are closed.
20.06.2019 arr C.S.(COMM.DIV)No.670 of 2018 and O.A.Nos.919 to 921 of 2019 KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J http://www.judis.nic.in 8 arr C.S.No.670 of 2018 20.06.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in