Madras High Court
Aquapump Industries vs Vinod Kumar Rachodmal Rathod on 19 December, 2024
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.12.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
O.A. Nos.980 & 981 of 2024 and A.No.6677 of 2024
in C.S. (Comm.Div.) No.256 of 2024
1.Aquapump Industries,
Tudiyalur Post,
Coimbatore 641 034 and also at
No.276/184, Linghi Chetty Street,
George Town, Chennai 600 001,
rep. by its Managing partner
Mr.Ramaswamy Kumaravelu
2.Aquasub Engineering,
Tudiyalur Post,
Coimbatore 641 034 and also at
No.276/184, Linghi Chetty Street,
George Town, Chennai 600 001,
rep. by its Managing partner
Mr.Ramaswamy Kumaravelu .. Applicants/Plaintiffs
vs
Vinod Kumar Rachodmal Rathod .. Respondent/Defendant
For applicants : Ms.Gladys Daniel
ORDER
The suit has been filed for infringement and passing off. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/4
2.The applicants/plaintiffs are the registered proprietors of the trademark 'TEXMO' and its variants. They claim that they have been using the said trade mark for the manufacture and sale of motor pumps from the year 1974 onwards. They have obtained trade mark registration under various classes as disclosed in the plaint. They have also disclosed their sales turnover in the plaint, which reveals that their sales turnover is huge. They claim that their trade mark 'TEXMO' and its variants have acquired distinctiveness by their long usage and the said trade marks are exclusively associated only with them. They claim that recently, they came to know that the respondent/defendant is also using a deceptively similar trade mark as that of the applicant/plaintiff by using the marks 'PRIDE TEXMO, MP TEXMO AND BLH TEXMO'. The respondent/defendant had also applied for trade mark registration for their aforementioned marks.
3.The applicants/plaintiffs had also filed Opposition Petition objecting to the grant of registration in favour of the respondent/defendant for the marks 'PRIDE TEXMO, MP TEXMO AND BLH TEXMO'. According to the applicants/ plaintiffs, no counter has been filed by the respondent/defendant in the said Opposition Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/4
4.The applicants/plaintiffs had also issued Cease and Desist Notice prior to the institution of the suit and also called upon the respondent/defendant to come for pre-suit mediation and the said notice has been received, but, according to the applicants/plaintiffs, till date, no reply has been received despite a lapse of more than 90 days. According to the applicants/plaintiffs, only under those circumstances, there became a necessity for the applicants/plaintiffs to file this suit.
5.Prima facie, this Court finds that the applicants/plaintiffs through the long usage of their trade mark 'TEXMO' and its variants have acquired distinctiveness for the said trade mark. This Court also finds that the marks namely, 'PRIDE TEXMO, MP TEXMO AND BLH TEXMO' used by the respondent/defendant are deceptively similar to that of the applicants'/plaintiffs' mark 'TEXMO' and its variants.
6.It is also noticed that the applicants/plaintiffs have issued a Cease and Desist Notice prior to the institution of the suit and has also called upon the respondent/defendant to come for pre-suit mediation. Despite receipt of the said notice, the respondent/defendant has neither sent a reply to the same nor have they come for pre-suit mediation as called for by the applicants/plaintiffs.
7.Since a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable hardship have been established as seen from the plaint averments as well as from the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/4 ABDUL QUDDHOSE,J.
vga averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of these applications and the documents filed along with these applications also establish the claim of the applicants/plaintiffs, this Court is inclined to grant an order of interim injunction as prayed for in O.A. Nos.980 and 981 of 2024 but, however grant an opportunity for the respondent/defendant to contest the interim injunction order.
8.It is made clear that the interim injunction shall become operative only after 21 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9.Accordingly, there shall be an order of interim injunction as prayed for in O.A. Nos.980 and 981 of 2024. However, the said interim injunction order shall become operative only after 21 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the respondent/defendant.
10.Notice to the respondent/defendant returnable by 27.01.2025. Private notice is also permitted. Post the matter on 27.01.2025. Order XXXIX Rule 3 of C.P.C. to be complied with.
19.12.2024 vga Note: Issue order copy today (19.12.2024) O.A. Nos.980 & 981 of 2024 and A.No. 6677 of 2024in C.S. (Comm.Div.) No.256 of 2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/4