Madras High Court
Ahmed Hussain. B vs Nikita Dubey Rai on 29 April, 2024
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
C.S. (Comm. Div.) No.324 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.04.2024
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
C.S. (Comm. Div.) No.324 of 2023
1.Ahmed Hussain. B
2.Sebile Educations Private Limited,
Rep by its Manager, Mr.Ahmed Hussain.B,
C03123, DLF Garden City
Semencherry, Chennai - 600 130
Tamil Nadu, India ... Plaintiffs
Vs.
1. Nikita Dubey Rai
2. Deepanshu Dubey ... Defendants
Prayer: The suit filed under Order VII Rule 1 C.P.C. read with
Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Sections 27, 28, 29, 134
& 135 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 and Sections 51, 55 & 62 of the
Copyright Act, 1957, praying to pass judgment and decree against the
defendants as follows:
a) A permanent injunction restraining Defendants,
their directors, all their principal officers, staff, men, agent,
servants, successors, assigns in business, representatives and
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S. (Comm. Div.) No.324 of 2023
any other person from infringing the trade mark by using the
mark, “LEARNING EINSTEINS” or any other
word/words/device that are identical or deceptively similar
to the said registered trademark, “LITTLE EINSTEINS”
of the Plaintiffs in class 41 in respect of educational services
and thereby restraining them from claiming any right
through or under Defendants from in any manner infringing
the registered trademarks by using trade mark “LITTLE
EINSTEINS”,
b) A permanent injunction restraining the Defendants,
all his principal officers, staff, men, agent, servants,
successors, assigns in business, representatives and any
other person from passing off his/their services by using the
impugned trademark “LEARNING EINSTEINS”, which is
deceptively similar as registered trademark, "LITTLE
EINSTEINS" of the plaintiffs in Class 41, or any other
word/words/logo/artistic work/design/device that are
identical or deceptively similar to the said registered
Trademark of the Plaintiffs in class 41 in respect of
educational services, and thereby restraining the Defendants
in any manner from passing off.
c) A permanent injunction restraining the Defendants,
all their principal officers, staff, men, agent, servants,
successors, assigns in business, representatives and any
other person from infringing the copyright of the Plaintiffs
by using the artistic work, trade dress and colour
combination, and by using the curriculum, study materials
prepared by the Plaintiffs and school bags etc. which are
identical and deceptively similar to that of the plaintiffs'
artistic works, colour combination and trade dress; or any
2/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S. (Comm. Div.) No.324 of 2023
other logo/artistic work/design/device/trade dress that are
identical or deceptively similar to the said copyright of the
Plaintiffs.
d) A Preliminary Decree be passed in favour of the
Plaintiff directing the Defendants to render a true and
faithful accounts of all profit made by them, using the
Plaintiff's said Trademark & Copyright and a final decree be
passed in favour of the Plaintiff for the amount of profit thus
found to have been made by the Defendants, together with
interest, after the Defendants has rendered accounts.
e) for the costs of the suit;
For Plaintiffs : Mr.Ramesh Ganapathy
For Defendants : Ex-parte on 08.04.2024
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed for permanent injunction from infringing, passing off of the plaintiff's trade mark and from infringing the copyright of the plaintiff and also for a Preliminary Decree in favour of the Plaintiff. Further, to direct the defendants to render a true and faithful accounts of all profit made by them, using the plaintiff's said trademark & copyright and a final decree in favour of the Plaintiff for the amount of profit thus found to 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S. (Comm. Div.) No.324 of 2023 have been made by the defendants, together with interest, after the defendants have rendered accounts and also for the costs of the suit.
2. When the matter came up for hearing before this Court on 25.04.2024, this Court had directed P.W.1 to appear before the learned Master on 26.04.2024 for recording proof affidavit and marking of documents. Though the learned counsel for the plaintiffs appeared before the learned Master on the said date, the witness did not appear before the learned Master on the said date and therefore, the learned Master, has sent all the records back to this Court.
3. Since the order of this Court dated 25.04.2024 has not been complied with, this suit is dismissed for default. There shall be no order as to costs.
29.04.2024
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
Neutral Case Citation : Yes/No
Ksa-2
4/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S. (Comm. Div.) No.324 of 2023
P.VELMURUGAN. J.
Ksa-2
C.S. (Comm. Div.) No.324 of 2023
29.04.2024
5/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis