Madras High Court
Yara International Asa vs Sasra Fertilisers Pvt. Ltd on 21 March, 2022
Author: N.Seshasayee
Bench: N.Seshasayee
C.R.P.(PD) No.552 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.03.2022
CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
C.R.P.(PD) No.552 of 2022
and CMP No.2932 of 2022
Yara International ASA
P.O. Box 343Skpyen
N-0213 Oslo,Norway
Represented by its Power of Attorney
Ritam Rawal, working for gain at
Millennium Plaza, Sector 27
Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 009.
Vide Power of Attorney dated February 1, 2021
... Plaintiff / Petitioner / Petitioner
Vs.
1.Sasra Fertilisers Pvt. Ltd.,
Flat No.A-110
Kochar Arjun Garden
Thorapakkam Road
Gerugambakkam, Chennai
Tamil Nadu – 600 128.
2.Global Century Seeds and Agro Chemicals Centre
No.34, Prabu Complex
Nachiappa Street, Akilmedu
Main Road, Erode
Tamil Nadu – 638 001.
Also at : Palayapalayam
Near MLA Office, Perundurai Road
Erode, Tamil Nadu – 638 001.
... Respondents / Respondents / Defendants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
C.R.P.(PD) No.552 of 2022
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, praying to pass an order setting aside the impugned order dated
07.10.2021 denying/refusing interim protection to the petitioner in
I.A.No.321/2021 in O.S.No.179 of 2020, pending on the file of the District
Court No.II at Kanchipuram, as being manifestly erroneous, arbitrary,
illegal and unjust and consequently quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Parthasarathy
Senior Counsel
ORDER
The revision petitioner is the plaintiff, and he has challenged the order of the learned District Judge, Court No.II, Kancheepuram in I.A.No.321/2021 in O.S.No.179 of 2020, dated 07.10.2021 , refusing to grant an order of interim injunction against the defendants on an allegation of violation of its trade mark. The suit is laid for trade mark and passing off.
2. Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the owner of the trade mark has a property in it, and its violation affects its commercial existence, and the trial Court ought to have granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the trade mark. He submitted the plaintiff's trade mark is 'YARA' written https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/7 C.R.P.(PD) No.552 of 2022 above a boat-like design. The defendants trade name goes by the name 'SASRA' in its packing material, but at the bottom, it says 'Imported & Packed by YARA FERTILISERS PVT.LTD.'. He added that both the plaintiff and the defendants are dealing in the same product - 'fertilizers'.
3. The learned counsel added that he has taken out an application for appointing a Commissioner and seizing the packing material used by the defendants with and without the content that carries the trade mark of the plaintiff. These applications are not even numbered till date. He however made a fair statement that though the trial Court has ordered notice to the defendants, the notice is only being taken. The learned counsel relied on the judgment in Messrs.H.Bevis and Company Vs. Ram Behari & others [1953 1 ALL 351] and Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc., Vs. B.Vijaya Sai and others [2022 Livelaw (SC) 65].
4. There is substantial merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The trade mark is not just an aspect of intellectual propriety but is a kind of property that generates goodwill to create a brand identity which is critical for the market-survival and in sustaining it. Therefore, if https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/7 C.R.P.(PD) No.552 of 2022 trade marks are not adequately protected then it may be detrimental to the commercial interest of the owner of the trade mark. The learned trial Judge ought to inform himself about the significance of trade mark and its violation 5.1 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd., Vs. Sudhir Bhatia [(2004) 3 SC 90], has held as under :
5. The law on the subject is well settled. In cases of infringement either of trade mark or of copyright, normally an injunction must follow. Mere delay in bringing action is not sufficient to defeat grant of injunction in such cases. The grant of injunction also becomes necessary if it prima facie appears that the adoption of the mark was itself dishonest.
5.2 Having said thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. TVS Motor Company Limited [(2009) 9 SCC 797] has extracted its earlier judgment in Shree Vardhman Rice & General Mills v. Amar Singh Chawalwala [(2009) 10 SCC 257], which reads as under :
4. Recently, we have held in Shree Vardhman Rice & General Mills v. Amar Singh Chawalwala [(2009) 10 SCC 257] as follows :
“ ..... Without going into the merits of the controversy, we are of the opinion that the matters relating to trade https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/7 C.R.P.(PD) No.552 of 2022 marks, copyrights and patents should be finally decided very expeditiously by the trial Court instead of merely granting or refusing to grant injunction. Experience shows that in the matters of trade marks, copyrights and patents, litigation is mainly fought between the parties about the temporary injunction and that goes on for years and years and the result is that the suit is hardly decided finally. This is not proper.
Proviso (a) to Order 17 Rule 1(2) CPC states that when the hearing of the suit has commenced, it shall be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the court finds that, for exceptional reasons to be recorded by it the adjournment of the hearing beyond the following day is necessary. The court should also observe clauses (b) to (e) of the said proviso.
In our opinion, in matters relating to trade marks, copyright and patents the proviso to Order 17 Rule 1(2) CPC should be strictly complied with by all the courts, and the hearing of the suit in such matters should proceed on day-to-day basis and the final judgment should be given normally within four months from the date of the filing of the suit.”
6. It is important that the learned trial Judge should sensitise himself on the salient aspects of working of trade marks, and its administration by the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/7 C.R.P.(PD) No.552 of 2022 Court. However, turning to the merit of the present revision, since the learned trial Judge is yet to decide on the merit of plaintiff's case, it may not be appropriate to interfere with his decision to order notice.
7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the matter comes before the trial Court on 25.03.2022. The revision petitioner may now approach the trial Court for appropriate remedies in the matter, and the trial Court is required to dispose of I.A.No.321 of 2021 in O.S.No.179 of 2020, at the very earliest and at any rate not later than one month.
8. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
21.03.2022 ds/dn Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Note : Issue order copy on 22.03.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/7 C.R.P.(PD) No.552 of 2022 N.SESHASAYEE.J., ds To:
The District Court No.II Kanchipuram.C.R.P.(PD) No.552 of 2022
21.03.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/7