Madras High Court
Nalina Kannan vs Mr.Pattappa Balaji on 24 September, 2019
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
C.S.No.773 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.09.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
C.S.No.773 of 2018
and
A.Nos.1768 & 6204 of 2019
8933 & 8934 of 2018
and O.A.No.1071 of 2018
Nalina Kannan ... Plaintiff
Vs.
1.Mr.Pattappa Balaji
2.Facebook Inc.,
1 Hacker Way,
Menlo Park,
California – 94025,
United States of America. ... Defendants
Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the High Court Original Side
Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 C.P.C. Read with Sections 142 & 134 of the
Trade Marks Act, 1999 praying for:
(a) A declaration that the report made by the defendant
against the plaintiff's “Thaligai Restaurant” page on
www.facebook.com and the consequent blocking of the page
on 02.08.2018 is illegal, unjustified and groundless;
(b) A perpetual injunction restraining the defendant by
himself, or his agents, distributors, successors, assigns and/all
of them from in any manner threatening the plaintiff herein,
directly or indirectly, in any manner by notice advertisements,
1/4
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.S.No.773 of 2018
circulars etc., regarding the use of the trade marks “Thaligai”
and thereby interfere and/or harm the business of the plaintiff
in any manner whatsoever;
(c) A perpetual injunction restraining the defendant by
himself, or his agents, distributors, successors, assign and/all
of them from infringing the plaintiff's trademark “Thaligai”
registered in class 43 with Trade Mark registration number
3275175, directly or indirectly and thereby violating the
plaintiff's rights in any manner whatsoever;
(d) A direction that the defendant pay a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) as damages for the losses
sustained by the plaintiff on account of the unjustified and
groundless threats made by the defendant;
(e) A direction that defendant bear the costs of this suit;
For Plaintiff : Mr.M.V.Swaroop
For Defendants : Mr.K.Rajasekaran
for D1
Mr.Allwin Godwin
for D2
JUDGMENT
The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the suit and he has also made an endorsement to that effect.
2/4http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.773 of 2018
2. In view of the above submission made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the Civil Suit is dismissed as withdrawn. The application filed by the first defendant to condone the delay in filing the written statement, is returned, with liberty to the defendants to file proper suit against the person, who had infringed their rights No costs. Consequently, connected applications are closed. The Registry is directed to refund necessary Court fee as per the relevant Rules.
24.09.2019 ms To The Sub Assistant Registrar, Original Side, High Court, Madras.
3/4http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.773 of 2018 N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
ms C.S.No.773 of 2018 24.09.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in