Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Mrs.Veena Kumaravel vs Mr.Sushil Oommen Thomas on 4 July, 2019

Author: Krishnan Ramasamy

Bench: Krishnan Ramasamy

                                                          1

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED : 04.07.2019

                                                      CORAM:

                                 The Hon'ble Mr.Justice KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

                                                C.S.No. 548 of 2016
                                                         and
                                         Appl.Nos.4837, 4838 & 4839 of 2016

                      1.Mrs.Veena Kumaravel

                      2.Groom India Salon and Spa Pvt.Ltd.,
                        (earlier known as Venus Spa and Salon Private Limited).
                        No.9 B, Ganga Griha, 1st Floor,
                        Nungambakkam High Road,
                        Chennai - 600 034,
                        represented by its Director
                        Mrs.Veena Kumaravel                                   ..   Plaintiffs
                                                            Vs
                      1.Mr.Sushil Oommen Thomas
                        Partner,
                        A.J.Enterprises,
                        B/43, Anandha Bhairavi Apartments,
                        Karthikeyan Salai,
                        Periyar Nagar, Chennai - 600 082.

                      2.Mrs.Rebecca Samuel
                        Partner,
                        A.J. Enterprises,
                        Annamalai Avenue, Okkiyam Village,
                        Thoraipakkam, Chennai - 600 097.

                      3.A.J.Enterprises
                        No.390, First Floor,
                        Rajiv Gandhi Salai,

http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                            2

                          Near MARG, Old Mahabalipuram Road,
                          Chennai - 600 096.                                     ..   Defendants




                      Prayer : Plaint filed under Order VII, Rule 1 of the CPC read with Order
                      IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules of the Madras High Court, and
                      Sections 11, 29, 135, Trade marks Act, 1999, praying
                             A. To grant permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their
                      directors, Franchisees, licensees, employees, officers, servants, agents and
                      all others acting for an on their behalf from using the trademark, trade name
                      and trading style featuring the mark NATURALS or any other name/mark
                      deceptively similar to plaintiffs' mark "NATURALS" in any manner
                      whatsoever, including in relation to their salon/spa/beauty care services or
                      any other business, including all use as part of their signage, business cards,
                      labels, promotional materials, advertisements, domain name/s, company
                      name/s, trading styles, URLs, e-mail addresses, screen names, user names,
                      website contents [whether or not visible], staff uniforms, transportation
                      vehicles, documents, reports, data, invoices, receipts, stationery, and on any
                      other materials and things on which they are using mark NATURALS or
                      anything identical or similar to Plaintiff's mark "NATURALS", amounting
                      to infringement to Plaintiff's trademark "NATURALS" under registration
                      No.1414842 in class 42 that amount to infringement thereof;


                             B. To grant permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their
                      directors, Franchisees, licensees, employees, officers, servants, agents and


http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                            3

                      all others acting for an on their behalf from using the trademark, trade name
                      and trading style featuring the mark NATURALS or any other name/mark
                      deceptively similar to plaintiffs' mark "NATURALS" in any manner
                      whatsoever, including in relation to their salon/spa/beauty care services or
                      any other business, including all use as part of their signage, business cards,
                      labels, promotional materials, advertisements, domain name/s, company
                      name/s, trading styles, URLs, e-mail addresses, screen names, user names,
                      website contents [whether or not visible], staff uniforms, transportation
                      vehicles, documents, reports, data, invoices, receipts, stationery, and on any
                      other materials and things on which they are using mark NATURALS or
                      anything identical or similar to Plaintiff's mark "NATURALS", that amounts
                      to passing off the Defendants goods or business or services as those
                      Plaintiffs;


                             C. To grant permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their
                      partners, directors, Franchisees, licensees, employees, officers, servants,
                      agents and all others acting for an on their behalf from using the Plaintiff's
                      Purple and White Trade Dress as depicted within the Plaint in any manner
                      whatsoever, including in relation to their salon/spa/beauty care services or
                      any other business, including all use as part of their signage, business cards,
                      labels, promotional materials, interiors and exteriors of its business place
                      advertisements, website, company name/s, trading styles, website contents
                      [whether or not visible], transportation vehicles, documents, reports, data,
                      invoices, receipts, stationery, and on any other materials and things on
                      which they are using plaintiff's Trade Dress of Purple and White or anything


http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                             4

                      similar to Plaintiff's Trade Dress, that amounts to passing off the
                      Defendant's goods or business or services as those of Plaintiff;


                            D. To grant damages for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Twenty Lakhs
                      Rupees) in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.


                            E. To direct the Defendants to pay the plaintiffs a sum of
                      Rs.10,62,8896/- towards royalty fee payable to the plaintiffs;




                            F. To grant order of delivery up of any brochures/printed materials
                      and/or any material which contributes ultimately to the infringement of
                      plaintiffs trademark for destruction thereof;


                            G. To direct the Defendants for rendition of accounts;


                            H. Costs and such other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, in
                      the circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice and equity.


                                   For Plaintiffs                : Ananad And Anand
                                                                   No appearance

                                   For Defendants                : No appearance




                                                    JUDGMENT

http://www.judis.nic.in 5 When the Civil Suit was listed for hearing on 28.06.2019, the learned counsel for the plaintiff filed a memo, stating that he is no longer appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs. Therefore, this Court directed the Registry to list the matter on 02.07.2019 and also to print the name of the plaintiffs in the cause list. As per the said direction, the matter was listed on 02.07.2019, and though the name of the plaintiffs were printed in the causelist, there was no representation for the plaintiffs. Hence, as a last indulgence, this Court directed the Registry to list the matter on 04.07.2019 by printing the name of the plaintiffs in the causelist. Accordingly, the matter is listed today. But even today, when the Civil Suit is taken up, there is no representation on behalf of the plaintiffs. Therefore, it is to be construed that the Plaintiffs are not interested in pursuing the matter. Hence, this Civil Suit stands dismissed for non- prosecution. No costs. Consequently, connected applications are closed.

04.07.2019 Pns KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J., http://www.judis.nic.in 6 Pns C.S.No. 548 of 2016 04.07.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in