Madras High Court
S.Sudhakar vs / on 17 December, 2019
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
C.S.No.324 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ORDERS RESERVED ON : 26.11.2021
PRONOUNCING ORDERS ON : 01.12.2021
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MR.N.ANAND VENKATESH
Civil Suit (Commercial Division) No.324 of 2017
1. S.Sudhakar
No.84, M.C.Road,
Old Washermenpet,
Chennai 600 021.
2. Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods P Ltd.,
No.9, N.N.Garden,
10th Street, Chennai 600 021.
Rep. By its Director
Mr.S.Sudhakar .. Plaintiffs
/versus/
1. Priya Krishnakumar
Proprietor,
UDAYA MASALA,
216/A2, Senguttaipalayam.
Negamam Road,
Pollachi – 642 120,
Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu
2. Krishnakumar,
Proprietor,
Sri Krishna Spices,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/33
C.S.No.324 of 2017
216/A2, Senguttaipalayam,
Negamam Road,
Pollachi,
Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu ..Defendants
Prayer: Civil Suit has been filed under Order IV, Rule 1 O.S.Rules
read with Order 7 Rule 1 CPC read with Section Section 27, 134 and
135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 51, 55, 58 and 62 of the
Copy Rights Act, 1957, praying to pass a judgment and decree for:-
(a) A Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their
distributors, stockiest, servants, agents, retailers, representatives,
sister concerns, affiliates or any other person claiming under /
through them from in any manner infringing the plaintiffs registered
trademark 'UDHAIYAM' and/or the mark/device/logo/artistic work of
sunrays by hosting websites/ web pages, manufacturing, selling,
offering for sale, stocking, advertising, exporting, importing either
directly and/or indirectly any goods and in particular any Masala
powders or other food products under the trademark 'UDAYA' and/or
the mark/device/logo/ artistic work of sunrays as shown in plaint
document No.12 either per-se or in combination and/or any other
mark/device either in English or Tamil or any other language, which
is idential with and/or deceptively similar to plaintiffs' registered
trademark “UDHAIYAM”and / or the mark/device/logo/artistic work
of sunrays or in any other manner whatsoever.
(b) A perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their
distributors, stockiest, servants, agents, retailers, representatives,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/33
C.S.No.324 of 2017
sister concerns, affiliates or any other person claiming under/through
them from in any manner hosting websites/ webpages,
manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, stocking, advertising,
exporting, importing either directly and/or indirectly any goods and
in particular any Masala Powders or other food products using the
trade mark 'UDAYA' and/or the mark/device/logo/artistic work of
sunrays, as contained in Plaint Document No.12, either per-se or in
combination with any other mark/ device/logo/artistic work either in
English or Tamil or any other language which is identical with or
deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trademark 'UDHAIYAM' and/or the
plaintiff's mark/device/logo/artistic work of Sunrays so as to pass off
the defendants products as and for the products of the plaintiffs or in
any other manner whatsoever connected with the plaintiff.
(c) A perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their
distributors, stockiest, servants, agents, retailers, representatives,
sister concerns, affiliates or any other person claiming under/through
them from in any manner committing acts of copyright infringement
by printing, stocking, manufacturing, selling, offering for sale,
stocking, advertising directly or indirectly, any goods, and in
particular any masala powders or other food products, under the
mark/label/device/logo/artistic work of sunrays, as contained in
plaint document No.9, or any other mark/label/device/logo/artistic
work of sunrays, which is identical with or deceptively similar to the
plaintiffs' mark/label/device/logo/artistic work as contained in
Plaint Document NO.9 or in any other manner whatsoever;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/33
C.S.No.324 of 2017
(d) A perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendant from
using the name UDAYA MASALA or any other name which is identical
with / deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trademark UDHAIYAM as
her proprietary concern's name either in English or Tamil or any other
langugage.
(e) The defendants be ordered to surrender to plaintiffs for
destruction all packed goods, label, dyes, blocks, moulds , screen
prints, packing materials and other materials bearing the trademark
'UDAYA MASALA' and / or the mark/label/device/logo/artistic of
sunrays either in English or Tamil or any other language.
(f) A preliminary decree be passed in favour of the plaintiffs
directing the defendants to render account of profits made by use of
trademark 'UDAYA MASALA' and/or the
mark/label/device/logo/artistic of sun rays either per-se or in
combination and/or any other mark either in English or Tamil or any
other language and a final decree be passed in favour of the plaintiffs
for the amount of profit thus found to have been made by the
defendant after the latter have rendered accounts.
(g) The defendants be ordered and decreed to pay to the
plaintiffs jointly and severally a sum of Rs.25,01,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Five lakhs one thousand only) as special damages for acts of
passing off and infringement of trade mark and copy right committed
by them.
(h) for costs of the suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4/33
C.S.No.324 of 2017
For Plaintiffs : Mrs.R.Devi for
Mr.R.Parthasarathy
For Defendants : No appearance
------
JUDGMENT
This suit has been filed by the plaintiffs alleging infringement of the registered trade mark of the plaintiffs, passing off of goods and infringement of copyright in respect of the artistic work contained in the label and the plaintiffs have sought for various reliefs against the defendants.
2. The plaintiff is engaged in the business of marketing food and allied products such as dhalls, atta, rava, maida, spices etc and various types of rice, sugar and masala powders under the Trade Mark “udhaiyam”/ . It is stated that the plaintiff has been continuously using this mark from the year 1940 onwards. The plaintiff applied for and obtained registration of the trademark udhaiyam in the year 1993 in respect of goods contained in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/33 C.S.No.324 of 2017 class 30. The plaintiffs' trade mark along with the device of sunrays is portrayed as
3. The Plaintiff has obtained registration certificates for products falling under class 16, 30 and 31.
4. The plaintiff claims that their trademark and label has attained a distinctive character and the general public have come to exclusively associate the trade mark and the label.
5. The plaintiff has also made necessary averments to substantiate that they have sufficient sales turnover by using the mark and label.
6. The grievance of the plaintiff is that during August 2017, they came to know that the defendants are marketing masala powders under the trade mark ‘UDAYA MASALA’/ . The plaintiff complains that the defendants are using a similar trademark with identical logo/ artistic work. In view of the above, the plaintiff has https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/33 C.S.No.324 of 2017 alleged infringement of registered trademark of the plaintiffs', passing off of goods and infringement of copyright in respect of artistic work contained in the label. Accordingly, various reliefs have been sought for by the plaintiff.
7. The defendants have filed a written statement. The defendants have claimed that they are marketing masala products under the name “UDAYA MASALA” from the year 2012 onwards. According to the defendants, they have used their son’s name Udhaya varma and named the mark as “UDAYA MASALA”. The further case of the defendants is that ‘Udhaiyam’ or ‘Udaya’ are common names and it is being used by various manufactures in Class 29 and 30 goods. The further stand taken by the defendants is that there is no infringement of the trademark, since the goods in question are entirely different. On the very same ground, the defendants have also refuted the claim of passing off. Insofar as the copyright is concerned, they have taken a stand that nobody has an exclusive monopoly over sunrays being used as a label mark and they have also decided to modify the label mark. The defendants have also undertaken not to use the trademark https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/33 C.S.No.324 of 2017 udaya masala or udaya for any other food products except masala products and spices.
8. Based on the pleadings, this Court framed the following issues :-
1. Whether the use of the name/mark Udaya as a trade mark by the defendants in respect of their spices and masala products is bonafide? And if so, are the defendant's entitled to use the same by virtue of Section 35 of the Trademarks Act, 1999?
2. Whether the use of the deceptively similar trade mark/ proposed mark/ any other mark udaya / udaya masala by the defendants in respect of their goods viz.spices and masala products, which are allied to the plaintiffs goods, amount to infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademarks and/ or sunrays device, and /or the tort of passing off?
3. Whether the plaintiff can claim that the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/33 C.S.No.324 of 2017 defendants have infringed their trade mark when the products of the plaintiff and defendant fall under two different class of products under the International Classifications of goods and Services (Nice Classifications)?
4. Whether the plaintiff can claim proprietary right over the artistic work contained in the sunrays device to the exclusion of the defendant?
5. Whether the defendant proves that the name/mark UDHAYAM has become publici juris?
6. Whether the mark / label/device/logo/artistic work of sunrays of the plaintiff is infringed by the defendant in using the trademark/ device/ artistic work UADYA MASALA?
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief as prayed for ?
9. The manager of the plaintiff company was examined as PW1 and Ex.P1 to P19 and MO1 [series five packets] were marked on https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/33 C.S.No.324 of 2017 the side of the plaintiffs. The second defendant entered the witness box as DW1 and affidavit of evidence was filed on 11-11-2019. Fifty documents were marked on the side of the defendants as Exhibit D1- D50. The witness did not thereafter appear for giving evidence and was not able to be subjected to cross-examination. Ultimately, the learned counsel for the defendants reported no instructions and in view of the same, the defendant side evidence was closed on 12-11- 2021. In view of this development, the affidavit of evidence of DW1 will stand eschewed. Insofar as the documents that were marked on the side of the defendants as exhibits Ex.D1 to Ex.D50, the same is inadmissible in view of the fact that the application filed by the defendants for filing the documents in A.No.9557 of 2019 came to be dismissed by this Court by an order dated 17.12.2019 and the same was later confirmed by the Division Bench in Appeal. In the light of this order, the defendants cannot be allowed to mark the documents, which were not even filed along with the written statement.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. There is no representation for the defendants either in person or through https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/33 C.S.No.324 of 2017 counsel.
11. ISSUES NOS.2, 3 AND 6 ARE TAKEN UP FOR DISCUSSION :-
11.1. The plaintiff is engaged in the business of marketing food and allied products and they have applied for and obtained registration of the trademark with respect to goods contained in class 16, 30 and 31.
The same is evident from exhibit P3, P4 (series), P8 and P10. It is also evident from the advertisements of the plaintiff marked as exhibit P18 that they have been using the mark and label for a range of products from the year 1993 onwards. The sales turnover of the plaintiffs' by using the mark and label is evident from exhibit P16 and P19. A cumulative consideration of all these materials clearly goes to show that the plaintiffs have established a separate identity for their products and have gained sufficient reputation and good will. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/33 C.S.No.324 of 2017 11.2. The mark of the defendants is “ “.Admittedly the defendants are using this mark for marketing masala powders. The defence taken by the defendants is that they are using the name of their son udhaya varma for trading masala powders and that such usage of personal name is protected under Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, (hereinafter called as the “Act”). The further defence that has been taken by the defendants is that they are using the mark udaya masala only for masala products and spices and the plaintiffs are not involved in marketing of these products. It is further stated that the impugned mark is not deceptively similar to the mark of the plaintiff, more particularly since they are dealing with different products. The defendants have also taken umbrage on the ground that there are various manufacturers with the name udhayam in class 29 and 30 goods and hence, there can be no infringement under Section 29 of the Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/33 C.S.No.324 of 2017 11.3. In the present case, the goods in question are bought and consumed by a common man. Even at the inception, it must be clarified that the plaintiff has been manufacturing and marketing spices and masala products and the same is evident from the materials placed before this Court. Therefore, the stand taken by the defendants as if the plaintiff is not manufacturing those products is unsustainable.
11.4. When it comes to consumable goods which are bought by a common man, the similarity and the consequent confusion that it is likely to cause must be judged from the eyes of :-
(a). an unwary customer,
(b).with average intelligence and
(c).with an imperfect re-collection.
In the present case, there is certainly a similarity in the trade name. There is also a deceptive similarity in the mark/label/artistic work of sunrays. When it comes to infringement of registered trademarks, the Court must https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13/33 C.S.No.324 of 2017 only see if there is an identical mark or a deceptively similar mark. In such cases, a valid registration mark is enough and there is no requirement to establish that the registered mark holder has earned a goodwill/reputation. However, in the present case, the plaintiff has certainly earned goodwill and reptation.
11.5. This Court must bear in mind the test that was suggested by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in [Parle Products (P) Ltd vs J. P. & Co. Mysore] in 1972 1 SCC 618, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in order to come to the conclusion whether one mark is deceptively similar to another, the broad and essential features of the two are to be considered. The Court should not place the two products side by side and find out the differences. It is enough if the impugned mark bears such an overall similarity to the registered mark as would be likely to mislead a person. 11.6. In the present case, the defendants are using a similar mark for identical goods. In other words, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14/33 C.S.No.324 of 2017 the defendants are using for masala products and spices.
11.7. This Court has carefully seen the registered trade mark of the plaintiff and the impugned mark of the defendants and applied the test suggested by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it is found that the impugned mark is deceptively similar. A consumer who goes to a grocery store will certainly be misled by the overall getup of the impugned mark used by the defendants and there are all chances that he will get confused and may think the product is manufactured and sold by the plaintiff.
11.8. In view of this finding, the plaintiff has made out a case for infringement of the registered trademark against the defendants. The defendants are also using the impugned mark for spices and masala products, which is specifically dealt with by the plaintiff and the products handled by the defendants cannot be said to be falling under different class of products. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15/33 C.S.No.324 of 2017 11.9. Insofar as the action under passing off, the said common law right is available to the plaintiff even insofar as a registered trademark. The plaintiff has certainly made out a case of earning goodwill and reputation in the market. The defendants have entered the market admittedly only in the year 2012 and the plaintiff is in the market from the year 1940 onwards and their earliest trademark registration had taken place in 1993. Even the subsequent registrations have taken place between the years 2002-06. Hence the defendants are clearly a late entrant dealing with similar goods. The reputation and goodwill earned by the plaintiffs' over a period of time is sought to be taken advantage of by the defendants and they are attempting to have a deceitful economic advantage. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the defendants by using the mark “UDAYA MASALA” in respect of their goods are passing off the registered trade mark of the plaintiff. The issues taken up for consideration are https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16/33 C.S.No.324 of 2017 answered accordingly.
12. THIS COURT WILL NOW TAKE UP ISSUE NOS.1 AND 5 FOR CONSIDERATION :-
12.1. The defendants have taken a stand as if the name ‘udhaiyam’ is used by various other manufacturers who are deling in class 29 and 30 goods.
Except for a statement made in the written statement, the defendants have not chosen to substantiate this claim by getting into the witness box and by filing the relevant documents. Hence, this Court cannot come to a conclusion that the name/mark udhaiyam has become publici juris.
12.2. Insofar as the bonafides claimed by the defendants to the effect that they have kept the name of their son for the product, the same is not sustainable. It must be kept in mind that the plaintiffs' is a registered trademark holder who has been using for a very long time. The defendants who entered the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 17/33 C.S.No.324 of 2017 market in the year 2012, conveniently picked up a deceptively similar mark/label and are attempting to justify as if they used their son’s name. According to the defendants their son’s name is ‘udhaya varma’. If they are so genuine, they could have taken the later part of their son’s name and sold their products. Dragging the name of the son is more a lame excuse given by the defendants who have obviously attempted to take advantage of the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiffs. Except for the ipse dixit of the defendants in the written statement, there is no other material to justify the stand taken by them. These issues are answered accordingly.
13. THIS COURT WILL TAKE UP ISSUE NO.4 FOR CONSIDERATION :
In the present case, there is a distinctive label which qualifies as an ‘artistic work’ under Section 2 (c) of the Copyright Act. It will also qualify as a mark under Section 2 (m) of the Act. The plaintiff who is the owner https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18/33 C.S.No.324 of 2017 of the artistic work will have the exclusive right to use the labels under Section 14 of the Copyright Act and Section 27 of the Act. The distinctive label is apparent on a close scrutiny of exhibit P7, P8 and P10. The exclusivity of the trademark/label of the plaintiff has already been recognised by this Court while granting an interim order in their favour and the same is evident from Ex. P9. The use of the trademark ‘udaya masala’ along with a device of sunrays, which is evident from Ex. P13 and MO1 clearly shows that the defendants have infringed the artistic work contained in the mark of the plaintiff and hence, it amounts to infringement of Copyright contained in the sunrays device. This issue is answered accordingly.
14. This Court will go into the final part of this judgement regarding the reliefs for which the plaintiff will be entitled to. This Court has already found that the defendants have infringed the registered trade mark of the plaintiffs and have passed off the registered trademark and the sunrays device of the plaintiff. That https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 19/33 C.S.No.324 of 2017 apart, the defendants have also infringed the copyright of the plaintiffs by adopting the artistic work contained in the sunrays device for which the plaintiff has the exclusive right.
15. In view of the above, the plaintiff will be entitled for the relief of permanent injunction sought for by them and for directions to the defendants as specified in the relief portion. Insofar as the relief of damages is concerned, there is no material to determine the damage for the present and a complete picture will emerge only after the defendants render their accounts and reveal their profits. Hence this Court is not inclined to fix any damages for the present.
16. In the result, there shall be a judgement and decree for:-
(a) permanent injunction, restraining the Defendant, his servants, agents, distributors, or anyone claiming through them from manufacturing, selling, advertising and offering for sale using same or similar label, get up, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 20/33 C.S.No.324 of 2017 and colour scheme used by the Defendant or in relation to dhalls, atta, rava, maida, spices etc and various types of rice, sugar and masala powders under the Trade Mark udahyam nor use the same pouches, packets of masalas and spices or any other goods or by using any other trade mark which is in any way visually, and deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs' label marks label.
(b) For permanent injunction, restraining the Defendant, his servants, agents, distributors, or anyone claiming through them from manufacturing, selling, advertising and offering for sale using same or similar get up, and colour scheme used by the Defendant or by using any other trade mark which is in any way visually or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs' trade mark "UDHAYAM”/ label in relation to any dhalls, atta, rava, maida, spices etc and various types of rice, sugar and masala powders or any other goods or use the mark in invoices, letters heads and visiting cards or any other trade literature or by using any other trade mark which is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 21/33 C.S.No.324 of 2017 in any way visually and deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trade marks.
(c) There shall be a direction for directing the Defendants to surrender to the Plaintiffs all the packing material, cartons, advertisement materials and hoardings, letter-heads, visiting cards, office stationery and all other materials containing/bearing the name ‘UDHAYMASALA’/ . or other deceptively similar trade mark used in the pouches and packets in respect of masalas and
(d) There shall be a preliminary decree directing the defendants to render true and faithful accounts of the profits earned by them by using the offending trade mark “UDAYA MASALA”/ from the date of filing of this suit up to the date of the judgement and decree passed in this suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 22/33 C.S.No.324 of 2017
17. The suit is accordingly allowed and the defendants directed to pay cost of a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the plaintiff.
01.12.2021 Internet: Yes Index : Yes rka List of Witness examined on the side of the Plaintiff:-
Mr.K.Rairela Ketan J – P.W.1 – examined in Chief on 29.07.2019 List of Witness examined on the side of the Defendants:-
Mr. Krishnakumar/Second Defendant- DW1 examined in Chief List of the Exhibits marked on the side of the Plaintiff:-
Sl. Exhibits Dated Description of documents Nos.
1. Ex.P1 26.07.2019 Letter of Authorization
2. Ex.P.2 12.03.2002 Certificate of incorporation of the 2nd plaintiff along with Memorandum of Association -
Photocopy
3. Ex.P3 23.04.1993 Trade Mark Registration https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 23/33 C.S.No.324 of 2017 Sl. Exhibits Dated Description of documents Nos.
Certificate No.595393 for the trade mark “UDHAYAM”
-Photocopy
4. Ex.P4 20.12.2002 Trademark Registration 19.02.2003 Certificates for the trade mark “Udhaiyam” -Photocopy 11.08.2003 24.05.2005 25.05.2005 25.05.2005 19.06.2006
5. Ex.P.5 22.11.2013 Nine Trademark applications 22.11.2013 pending registration for the Trademark “Udhaiyam” 22.11.2013 -Photocopy 22.11.2013 22.11.2013 22.11.2013 22.11.2013 22.11.2013 22.11.2013
6. Ex.P.6 16.09.2004 Five abandoned Trademark applications for the Trademark 13.11.2009 “Udhaiyam” - Photocopy 13.11.2009 13.11.2009 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 24/33 C.S.No.324 of 2017 Sl. Exhibits Dated Description of documents Nos.
7. Ex.P.7 Sample labels of the products manufactured and sold by the plaintiff under the sunrays mark / device / logo/ artistic work – Print out
8. Ex.P.8 Photograph showing all the products of the plaintiffs – Print out
9. Ex.P.9 03.04.2007 Order passed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in O.A.Nos.145, 146 and 147 of 2007in C.S.No.60 of 2007 A.Nos.1960 and 1961 of 2007 in O.A.No.145 of 2007, A.Nos.1962 and 1963 of 2007 in O.A.No.146 of 2007 and A.Nos.1964 and 1965 of 2007 in O.A.No.147 of 2007 – Print out
10. Ex.P.10 Plaintiff's sunrays device used in respect of their UDHAIYAM range of products – Print out
11. Ex.P.11 24.03.2017 Details regarding the advertisement expenses incurred by the plaintiffs and the sales turnover for the period 2003 to 2016 with respect to the trademark 'UDHAIYAM', as certified by the Chartered Accountant - Photocopy
12. Ex.P12 07.09.2015 Copy of few order of injunctions obtained by the plaintiffs -
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 25/33 C.S.No.324 of 2017 Sl. Exhibits Dated Description of documents Nos.
Photocopy
13. Ex.P.13 - Defendant's trademark along with the device of sunrays. -
Print out
14. Ex.P.14 - A print out of the home page of the 1st defendant's website, along with the 2nd defendant's brochure – Print out
15. Ex.P15 08.02.2017 Invoice of Ganesh Department store located at 95/11, New Scheme Road, Pollachi – 642 001 – evidencing the sale of the defendant's infringing products – Photocopy
16. Ex.P16 Plaint document dated 27.03.2018
17. Ex.P17 Plaint document
18. Ex.P18 Plaint document
19. Ex.P19 Plaint document List of the Exhibits marked on the side of the Defendants:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 26/33 C.S.No.324 of 2017 Sl. Exhibit Dated Description of documents Nos. s
1. Ex.D1 13.07.2012 Copy of the VAT Registration Certificate of 1st defendant in the name of UDYA MASALA https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 27/33 C.S.No.324 of 2017 Sl. Exhibit Dated Description of documents Nos. s
2. Ex.D2 06.10.2012 Copy of Trade Mark Application No.2412375 filed by the 1st defendant for the mark UDAYA MASALA.
3. Ex.D3 19.10.2013 Copy of Invoice for supply of Printing rollers for UDAYA MASALA labels
4. Ex.D4 20.10.2013 Copy of Invoice for supply of Printing rollers for UDAYA MASALA labels
5. Ex.D5 28.10.2013 Copy of Invoice for supply of Printing rollers for UDAYA MASALA labels
6. Ex.D6 28.10.2013 Copy of Invoice for supply of Printing rollers for UDAYA MASALA labels
7. Ex.D7 01.11.2013 Copy of Invoice for supply of Printing rollers for UDAYA MASALA labels
8. Ex.D8 28.10.2013 Copy of Invoice for supply of Printing rollers for UDAYA MASALA labels
9. Ex.D9 17.05.2017 Copy of certificate of sales Turn over certified by the Chartered Accountant made by the 1st defendant from the year of 2012-
2013 inclusive of advertisement expenses.
10. Ex.D10 05.10.2014 Invoice copy of Advertisement of UDAYA MASALA in Dhinakaran Daily https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 28/33 C.S.No.324 of 2017 Sl. Exhibit Dated Description of documents Nos. s newspaper.
11. Ex.D11 14.01.2015 Invoice copy of Advertisement of UdayaMasala in Coimbatore Daily Thanthi (Kovail edition)
12. Ex.D12 10.02.2015 Invoice copy of Advertisement of Udaya Masala in Dhinakaran Daily Newspaper
13. Ex.D13 14.04.2015 Invoice copy of advertisement of Udaya Masala in Dinakaran Daily newspaper
14. Ex.D14 26.04.2015 Invoice copy of Advertisement of udaya Masala in Coimbatore Daily Thanthi (Kovai Edition)
15. Ex.D15 22.07.2015 Invoice copy of Advertisement of Udaya Masala in Dhinakaran Daily Newspaper
16. Ex.D16 26.07.2015 Invoice copy of Advertisement of Udaya Masala in Dhinakaran Daily
17. Ex.D17 03.08.2015 Invoice copy of Advertisement of Udaya Masala in Dhinakaran Daily Newspaper
18. Ex.D18 23.08.2015 Invoice copy of Advertisement of Udaya Masala in Dhinakaran Daily Newspaper
19. Ex.D19 22.08.2015 Invoice copy of Advertisement of Udaya Masala in Dhinamalar Daily Newspaper
20. Ex.D20 10.10.2015 Invoice copy of Advertisement of Udaya Masala in Dhinamalar Daily Newspaper https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 29/33 C.S.No.324 of 2017 Sl. Exhibit Dated Description of documents Nos. s
21. Ex.D21 02.11.2015 Invoice copy of Advertisement of Udaya Masala in Dhinakaran Daily Newspaper
22. Ex.D22 06.11.2015 Invoice copy of Advertisement of Udaya Masala in Dhinamalar Daily Newspaper
23. Ex.D23 10.11.2015 Invoice copy of Advertisement of Udaya Masala in Dhinamalar Daily Newspaper
24. Ex.D24 10.11.2015 Invoice copy of Advertisement of Udaya Masala in Dhinakaran Daily Newspaper
25. Ex.D25 05.12.2015 Invoice copy of Advertisement of Udaya Masala in Dhinamalar Daily Newspaper
26. Ex.D26 06.12.2015 Invoice copy of Advertisement of Udaya Masala in Dhinamalar Daily Newspaper
27. Ex.D27 15.01.2016 Invoice copy of Advertisement of Udaya Masala in Daily Thanthi
28. Ex.D28 15.01.2016 Invoice copy of Advertisement of Udaya Masala in Dhinakaran Daily Newspaper
29. Ex.D29 16.01.2016 Invoice copy of Advertisement of Udaya Masala in Dhinakaran Daily Newspaper
30. Ex.D30 07.02.2016 Invoice copy of Advertisement of Udaya Masala in Daily Thanthi
31. Ex.D31 24.02.2016 Invoice copy of Advertisement of Udaya Masala in Dhinakaran Daily https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 30/33 C.S.No.324 of 2017 Sl. Exhibit Dated Description of documents Nos. s Newspaper
32. Ex.D32 27.03.2016 Invoice copy of Advertisement of Udaya Masala in Daily Thanthi
33. Ex.D33 03.04.2016 Invoice copy of Advertisement of Udaya Masala in Dhinakaran Daily Newspaper
34. Ex.D34 27.06.2016 Invoice copy of Advertisement of Udaya Masala in Daily Thanthi
35. Ex.D35 02.08.2016 Invoice copy of Advertisement of Udaya Masala in Dhinakaran Daily Newspaper
36. Ex.D36 14.01.2017 Invoice copy of Advertisement of Udaya Masala in Dhinakaran Daily Newspaper
37. Ex.D37 15.04.2016 Invoice copy of Advertisement in VIJAY TV
38. Ex.D38 30.04.2016 Invoice copy of Advertisement in VIJAY TV
39. Ex.D39 31.08.2014 Invoice copy of Advertisement in RADIO MIRCHI - Coimbatore
40. Ex.D40 31.10.2014 Invoice copy of Advertisement in RADIO MIRCHI - Coimbatore
41. Ex.D41 31.10.2014 Invoice copy of Advertisement in RADIO MIRCHI - Coimbatore
42. Ex.D42 30.11.2015 Invoice copy of Advertisement in SURYAN FM RADIO - Coimbatore
43. Ex.D43 30.11.2015 Invoice copy of Advertisement in SURYAN FM RADIO Coimbatore
44. Ex.D44 31.12.2015 Invoice copy of Advertisement in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 31/33 C.S.No.324 of 2017 Sl. Exhibit Dated Description of documents Nos. s SURYAN FM RADIO Coimbatore
45. Ex.D45 31.01.2016 Invoice copy of Advertisement in SURYAN FM RADIO Trichy
46. Ex.D46 31.01.2016 Invoice copy of Advertisement in SURYAN FM RADIO Coimbatore
47. Ex.D47 29.02.2016 Invoice copy of Advertisement in SURYAN FM RADIO Trichy
48. Ex.D48 29.02.2016 Invoice copy of Advertisement in SURYAN FM RADIO Coimbatore
49. Ex.D49 03.10.2017 Computer generated copy of search report for trade mark UDAYAM in class 30.
50. Ex.D50 08.02.2007 Birth Certificate of Udayavarman Material Object S.No. Date Descripti Parties to Nature on document
1. - Infringing Defendant Original pouches of the defendant MO-1 Sealed cover https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 32/33 C.S.No.324 of 2017 N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
rka Pre-Delivery Judgment in Civil Suit (Commercial Division) No.324 of 2017 01.12.2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 33/33