Madras High Court
City Office vs M/S. Sri Varsha Electrodes on 6 August, 2019
Author: Krishnan Ramasamy
Bench: Krishnan Ramasamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.08.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
C.S.No.606 of 2012
M/s. V.N.C. Electrodes,
registered office
No.3, Industrial Estate,
S.Vellalapatti,
Karur 639 004,
Tamil Nadu
City Office
No.10, Soundararajan Street,
T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017,
rep. by its Managing Partner
C.Basker ... Plaintiff
Vs.
1. M/s. Sri Varsha Electrodes,
55, Phase V, Sidco Industrial Estate,
Kakkalur, Thiruvallur- 602 003.
2. M/s. Amar Trading Co.,
151 (155) Broadway,
Chennai 600 108. ... Defendants
Prayer:- This Civil Suit (Commercial) has been filed under Order
IV Rule 1 of O.S. Rules and Sections 27(2), Section 134 and 135
of the Trade Marks Act,1999 and Section 62 of the Copy Rights
Act 1957
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
(a) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants,
their men, relatives, servants, agents or anyone claiming through
or under them from in any manner infringing the plaintiff
Trademark registered trade mark "VNC", written in a styliased
manner with three diagonal stripes along the lettering, registered
under No.1742348 in Class 9, using the offending/deceptively
similar Trademark "SVE" or any other mark or marks which are
similar or in any way deceptively similar to or a colourable
imitation of the plaintiff's registered Trademark or any other
brand name/mark or otherwise; so long as the Trade Mark
Registration granted by the Trade Marks Registry with regard to
registered trademark "VNC" Logo under Regd. No.1742348 in
Class 9 is valid and subsisting ;
(b) grant of a permanent injunction restraining the
defendants, their men, relatives, servants, agents or any one
claiming through or under them from in any manner infringing
the plaintiff trademark registered trade mark "BESTARC",
registered under No.532924 in Class 9, using the
offending/deceptively similar Trademark "BLAZEARC" or any
other mark or marks which are similar or in any way deceptively
similar to or a colourable imitation of the plaintiff's registered
http://www.judis.nic.in
Trademark or any other brand name/mark or otherwise; so long
3
as the Trade Mark Registration granted by the Trade Marks
Registry with regard to registered trademark "BESTARC" label
under Regd. No.532924 in Class 9 is valid and subsisting;
(c) grant of a permanent injunction restraining the
defendants, their men, relatives, servants, agents or anyone
claiming through or under them from in any manner infringing
the plaintiff trademark registered trade mark "BESTARC",
registered under No.1256306 in Class 9, using the
offending/deceptively similar Trademark "BLAZEARC" or any
other mark or marks which are similar or in any way deceptively
similar to or a colourable imitation of the plaintiff's registered
Trademark or any other brand name/mark or otherwise; so long
as the Trade Mark Registration granted by the Trade Marks
Registry with regard to registered Trademark "BESTARC" label
under Regd. NO.1256306 in Class 9 is valid and subsisting;
d) Grant of a permanent injunction restraining the
defendants, their men, relatives, servants, agents or any one
claiming through or under them from in any manner passing off
the plaintiff trademark label containing the colour combination
similar to that of the plaintiff's trademark application under
No.1356795 in Class 9, using the offending carton, Trademark or
http://www.judis.nic.in
any other mark or marks which are similar or in any way
4
deceptively similar to or a colourable imitation of the plaintiff
Trademark or any other brand name/mark or otherwise;
(e) Grant of a permanent injunction restraining the
defendants, their men, relatives, servants, agents or anyone
claiming through or under them from in any manner infringing
the copyright pertaining to the artistic work comprised in the
carton filed as Material Object NO.1, using the offending carton
filed as Material Object NO.2, or any other colour
combination/essential features which are similar or in any way
deceptively similar or the colourable imitation of the plaintiff's
carton;
(f) grant of a permanent injunction restraining the
defendants from either by manufacturing or selling or offering for
sale or in any manner advertising an identical or deceptively
similar carton as that of the plaintiff's carton on welding
electrodes, Arc welding electrodes, Automatic and Semi
Automatic welding equipments being the goods covered by the
plaintiffs registration and also being the goods manufactured and
sold by the defendants.
(g) for a decree that the entire stock of the impugned goods
in the custody of each of the defendants be seized and kept in
http://www.judis.nic.in
the custody of the Hon'ble Court or the custody thereof be
5
handed over to the plaintiffs and/or their representatives/agents;
(h) Directing the defendants to render the true, correct and
faithful account of the sale of the goods under the Trademark of
the plaintiff to ascertain the exact amount of damages accrued to
the plaintiff;
(i) Directing to the defendants to surrender to theh plaintiff
the entire stock of unused label of the defendant with the
Trademark together with carton, label, brochures, printing
blocks, films, floppies, CD's and other materials containing the
offending Trademark, colour combination etc., which are
deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff.;
(j) for the costs of the suit.
For plaintiffs : Mr. T.K.Ramkumar
For defendant : Mr. K.Shakespear
for D1
: No appearance
for D2
JUDGEMENT
The plaintiffs have filed the present suit for permanent injunctions.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6
2. Today, when the matter is called, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff filed an affidavit of undertaking dated 06.08.2019 stating that the first defendant, who is the contesting, had filed a counter affidavit stating that the first respondent/first defendant has stopped to sell its product through the impugned carton referred as M.O.3 in the plaint and reverted to use the carton referred as M.O.2 in the plaint. He further submits that the plaintiff is satisfied with the above declaration of the first defendant and has no objection to the first defendant using the trademark "Blazearc" with the colour combination and stylization as contained in the carton filed as Material Object No.2 along with the plaint. Accordingly, the plaintiff seeks a decree in terms of such declaration of the first defendant, giving up the other reliefs sought for in the plaint. The said averment in the affidavit dated 06.08.2019 is recorded.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff also submits that the suit may be decreed in terms of the declaration of the first defendant in paragraph 9 of the counter. http://www.judis.nic.in 7
4. Accordingly, the admission of the first defendant in paragraph No.9 of the counter dated 23.11.2012 is recorded and the suit is decreed granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, relatives, servants, agents, or anyone claiming through or under them from in any manner infringing the registered trade marks of the plaintiff under No.1742348 in Class 9, registered trade mark under No.53294 in Class 9, registered trade mark under No.1256306 in Class 9, registered trade mark under No.1356795 in Class 9, passing off the plaintiff trademark and carton containing a colour combination similar to that of the plaintiff's trademark filed as Material Object No.1, using the offending carton filed as Material Object No.3 along with the plaint or any other mark or marks which are similar or in any way deceptively similar to or a colourable imitation of Material Objection No.1. The said affidavit shall form part of the decree.
06.08.2019 mrp Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking order/non speaking order http://www.judis.nic.in 8 KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J., mrp C.S.No.606 of 2012 06.08.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in