Madras High Court
Mrn Industries vs M/S.Sri Radhakrishna Rice Mill on 29 August, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 MAD 1237
Author: Krishnan Ramasamy
Bench: Krishnan Ramasamy
C.S.No.89 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.08.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
C.S. No.89 of 2012
MRN Industries,
No.6/60, Gadwal Road,
Raichur-584 103
Represented by its parnter MR.Naveen Kumar ... Plaintiff
..Vs..
1. M/s.Sri Radhakrishna Rice Mill,
Repalle, Guntur-522 265,
Andhra Pradesh
2. M/s.Sai Meghalakshmi Traders,
47/1, Krishnappa Agraharam Street,
Kondithop,
Chennai-600 079.
3. M/s.Meenam Traders,
29, New No.55, Mint Street,
Chennai-600 079. ... Defendants
Plaint filed under Order IV, Rule 1 of O.S.Rules Read with
Order VII Rule 1 of CPC and Read with Sections 27, 134 and 135 of
the Trade Marks Act, 1999 praying for:
(a) A perpetual injunction restraining the
Defendants by themselves or their men, partners,
1/10
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.S.No.89 of 2012
proprietors, stockists, dealers, servants, agents,
franchisees, successors in interest, licensees, assignees,
representatives or any of them from manufacturing,
selling, advertising and offering for sale using same or
similar layout, get up, and colour scheme and trademark
GOLDEN DEER label or any other similar trade mark or
in any media and use the same in bills, invoices, letter
heads and visiting cards or by using any other trade
mark which is in any way visually or deceptively or
phonetically similar to the Plaintiff's trademark GOLDEN
DEER in relation to rice and use the same in pouches,
bags, sachets or use the mark in invoices, letter heads
and visiting cards or any other trade literature or by
using any other trade mark which is in any way visually,
structurally or phonetically similar to the Plaintiff's
trademark GOLDEN DEER; from in any manner passing
off or enabling passing off the Defendants' goods under
the Trade mark "GOLDEN DEER" or any deceptively
similar Trade Mark as and for the goods of the Plaintiff's
under the Trade Mark "GOLDEN DEER" label or any
other manner whatsoever;
(b) The Defendants be ordered to surrender to the
Plaintiff for destruction all name boards, packing
materials, printer bills, rice bags, sachets and other
materials bearing the Trademark "GOLDEN DEER" or any
mark deceptively similar to that of the Plaintiff's brand
label and artistic work "GOLDEN DEER";
2/10
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.S.No.89 of 2012
(c) The Defendants be ordered to prepare and
submit an account of profits made by them by the
unlawful use of the Trade Mark of the Plaintiff and there
after to pass a final decree upon ascertaining the
accounts, in favour of the Plaintiff and against the
Defendants;
(d) For the costs of the suit;
For Plaintiff : Mr.K.Rajasekaran
Defendants : Defendants set exparte
JUDGMENT
This suit has been filed against the defendants for the infringement of plaintiff's trademark GOLDEN DEER and passing of, surrender of infringed defendants materials products, accessories bearing the trademark of "GOLDEN DEER", rendering of accounts of Defendants for profits made by them for unlawful use of plaintiff's trademark and for cost of the suit.
2. According to the Plaintiff, they are engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of rice under the 3/10 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.89 of 2012 Trade Mark GOLDEN DEER ever since 2002, having begun, preliminary work of constitution of the Plaintiff firm in the year 2001. Eversince then, the Plaintiff has been openly and continuously using the mark GOLDEN DEER. Owing to such use, stringent quality norms for procurement of raw materials and unique manufacturing process, the product of the Plaintiff has attained tremendous goodwill and reputation among the trade and public. The Trade Mark GOLDEN DEER Brand Label used for sale of rice is exclusively identified and associated with the Plaintiff by the consuming public and the wholesale and retail traders.
3. It is further stated that to ensure statutory protection for the intellectual property, the Plaintiff applied for the trademark GOLDEN DEER on 31.07.2006 under No.1474607 class 30, which has been duly published in the Trademark journal 1390 dated 16.04.2008 and the same is opposed and the opposition proceedings are in progress, thus delaying the accrual of statutory right in favour of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff further made a Trademark application on 20/02/2009 under No.1787800 class 30 4/10 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.89 of 2012 for the trademark GOLDEN DEER and the same is in the process of registration. Thus the exclusive rights and common law rights of the Plaintiff over the trademark label GOLDEN DEER is indisputable.
4. It is further stated that the Plaintiff bonafidely and honestly conceived and adopted the distinctive trademark GOLDEN DEER brand label for rice in the year 2002. The Plaintiff is the proprietor of the trademark GOLDEN DEER brand label and has been using the same continuously, openly and extensively for the past several years. The unique label adopted by the Plaintiff comprises of the following among other distinct features:-
a) Word MRN within a crown device at the top of the label;
b)The words GOLDEN DEER written in an artistic font
c)Line drawing of the device of single deer with three branched antlers under which the words BRAND and SUPER FINE RICE are written;
d)The complete postal address of the Plaintiff is found at the bottom followed by a general instruction as to the usage of the bags containing the label.
5/10
http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.89 of 2012
5. The Plaintiff's turnover for the year 2009-2010 is Rs.41.91 crores and cumulative turnover is Rs. 144.47 crores. The Sales Turn over as follows:
Sl Year Sales turnover of Golden
No. Deer (Rs)
1. 2002-03 2723896
2. 2003-04 26602992
3. 2004-05 88091504
4. 2005-06 131288012
5. 2006-07 203901064
6. 2007-08 232475961
7. 2008-09 340549169
8. 2009-10 419156325
Total 1444788923
7. Likewise, the Plaintiff has invested enormous time and money towards popularizing its brand label GOLDEN DEER and the advertisement expenses related thereto incurred by him are as under:
Sl Year Packing and Advertisement
No. Expenses (Rs)
1. 2002-03 200722
2. 2003-04 1049937
6/10
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.S.No.89 of 2012
Sl Year Packing and Advertisement
No. Expenses (Rs)
3. 2004-05 1697272
4. 2005-06 2753569
5. 2006-07 4281476
6. 2007-08 3509948
7. 2008-09 6647929
8. 2009-10 6898282
Total 27039135
8. It is further stated that the first Defendant has recently commenced manufacture and sale of identical product viz., rice under identical trademark label GOLDEN DEER brand. The first Defendant has copied the layout, artwork, get up and colour scheme in toto from the Plaintiff's brand.
9. It is further stated that both the Plaintiff and the defendant's goods under the label are circulation within the city of Chennai which is within the jurisdiction of this Court. The act of the first, second and third Defendants in manufacture and sale of GOLDEN DEER rice under falsified and imitative trademark is not only a civil wrong, but also a criminal offer which attracts imprisonment upto 3 years and penalty upto Rs.2 lakhs. Though the Plaintiff is entitled to invoke criminal jurisdiction apart from the 7/10 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.89 of 2012 present civil suit, the Plaintiff prefers to institute the present suit seeking an injunction against the defendants, their agents, relatives, men, partners etc. in respect of misappropriation of their trademark and passing off.
10. The act of the Defendants constitutes piracy of the property of the Plaintiff, as also the tort of passing off. The Defendants have no manner of right whatsoever to manufacture, advertise or sell rice under the GOLDEN DEER brand label. In order to popularize the brand, the Plaintiff has invested a fortune and spend enormous energy and time in constructing a brand image.
11.The Plaintiff through the oral and documentary evidence proved the unlawful infringement by the Defendants over the Plaintiff's Trade Mark "GOLDEN DEER". Therefore the Plaintiffs entitle for the reliefs prayed in the Plaint.
12. Despite the suit summons being served on the defendants and their names printed in the causelist there was no representation on behalf of them when the matter was called on 11.07.2019. Hence, the defendants were set exparte. Thereafter, the matter 8/10 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.89 of 2012 was listed before the Additional Master III for recording exparte evidence.
13. In order to substantiate their claim one Mr.B.Srinivasulu (PW1) was examined on the side of the Plaintiffs and Exhibits P1 to P17 were marked on their side.
14. I have heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiff and also gone through the Proof Affidavit as well as the documents filed on the side of the Plaintiff.
15.On a perusal of Exs.P16-Photographs of the Plaintiff's label and Ex.P17-photographs of the first defendant's label, it appears that defendants are copying the Plaintiff's tradename and also logo, colour scheme and get up . Further, the plaintiff's trademark, ''Golden Deer'' is also registered with the Registrar of Trademarks. In this regard, the plaintiff also marked the Registration Certificate of the Trademark. The plaintiff has been using the trademark from 2006 onwards. The plaintiff also achieved a sales total turnover of Rs.1444788923/- for the last eight years and also spent 9/10 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.89 of 2012 KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J arr Rs.27039135/- towards advertisement to promote sales of their product and also attained tremendous goodwill and reputation among the trade and public. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the defendants are clearly infringing the Trade mark of the Plaintiff and passing of its goods as that of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
16. Resultantly, the suit is decreed as prayed for with costs of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only).
29.08.2019 arr C.S. No.89 of 2012 10/10 http://www.judis.nic.in