Madras High Court
M/S.Murugan Metal Industries vs Murugan Metal on 27 November, 2019
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
C.S.No.503 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 27.11.2019
Coram
The Honourable Mr.Justice N.SATHISH KUMAR
C.S.No.503 of 2012
and
A.No.714 of 2019
1.M/s.Murugan Metal Industries
A Partnership firm, represented by its
Managing Partnership
Mr.E.M.Avanasaiappan
Park Town
Chennai – 600 003.
2.E.M.Avanasaiappan
3.A.Meenakshi ...Plaintiffs
Versus
1.Murugan Metal,
Represented by its Proprietor,
Mr.E.M.Karunanidhi
No.0/1 Teynampet Ramasamy Street,
Kondithope, Chennai 79
and also at
No.20, Bommuchetty Street
Park Town, Chennai 600 003.
1/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.S.No.503 of 2012
2.E.M.Karunanithi,
No.0/1 Teynampet Ramasamy Street,
Kondithope, Chennai 79
and also at
No.20, Bommuchetty Street
Park Town, Chennai 600 003.
3.K.Seetha
No.0/1 Teynampet Ramasamy Street,
Kondithope, Chennai 79
and also at
No.20, Bommuchetty Street
Park Town, Chennai 600 003.
...Defendants
(Causetitle in C.S.No.503 of 2012 amended as per order dated
12.09.2019 in application No.6645 of 2019)
The Civil Suit is filed under Order VII, Rule 1 of C.P.C read with
Order IV rule 1 of High Court OS Rules and Sections 134 and 135 of
the Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 55 and 62 of the Copyright Act
Prayed for (a) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants,
their men, agents, servants or any one claiming through them from in
any manner infringing the plaintiff's registered Trade Mark
“MURUGAN” by using the offending Trade Mark 'MURUGAN' or any
other Trade Mark or device which is identical or deceptively similar to
2/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.S.No.503 of 2012
or a colourable imitation to that of the plaintiff's registered trademark
and Trademark Label “MURUGAN”.
(b) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their
men, agents, servants, or any one claiming through them from in any
manner passing off the goods of the defendants as that of the plaintiff by
using the offending trade mark 'MURUGAN' as and for the trade mark
of the plaintiff 'MURUGAN' or any other Trade Mark Label/device
which is similar/deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff's trademark
'MURUGAN'.
(c) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants their
men, agents, servants or any one claiming through them from in any
manner infringing the plaintiff's copyright over the artistic work in the
trade mark label 'MURUGAN' by using the offending trade mark label
'MURUGAN' or any other trade mark label which is identical or
colourable reproduction of the plaintiff's artistic work in the trade mark
label 'MURUGAN'.
(d) directing the defendants to surrender to the plaintiff the entire
stocks, cartons with the infringing artistic work “MURUGAN” and
unused infringing Trademark labels “MURUGAN” together with blocks
and dies for destruction.
3/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.S.No.503 of 2012
(e) directing the defendants to render a true and faithful accounts
of the profits earned by them through the sale of their products bearing
the infringing labels “MURUGAN” which are similar or deceptively
similar to the plaintiff's Trademarks and copyrighted label
“MURUGAN” and directing the payment of such profits to the plaintiff;
(f) directing the defendants to pay the costs of the suit.
For Plaintiffs : Mr.Rajesh Ramanathan
For Defendants : Mr.Kaushik N.Sharma
JUDGMENT
Memo of Compromise is filed by both the parties (viz., second plaintiff, who represents himself as well as the authorized signatory of defendants 1 and 3 and the second respondent, who represents himself as well as the authorized signatory of defendants 1 and 3) which has been duly identified and signed by the Counsel for the plaintiffs and defendants.
4/6http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.503 of 2012
2. The second plaintiff and the second defendant were present today and they accepted the terms of compromise. The respective parties are also identified by their Counsel.
3. Accordingly, the Civil Suit is decreed in terms of memorandum of compromise. The memorandum of compromise shall form part and parcel of the judgment and decree. Consequently, connected Application is closed. No costs.
27.11.2019 Index : Yes/No sd 5/6 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.503 of 2012 N.SATHISH KUMAR, J., sd C.S.No.503 of 2012 27.11.2019 6/6 http://www.judis.nic.in