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 3, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

M/S.Zoho Corporation Private Limited vs M/S.Interestship Career Solutions ... on 4 January, 2019

Author: M.Sundar

Bench: M.Sundar

                                                           1


                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  Dated: 04.01.2019

                                                         CORAM

                                          THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

                                                 C.S.No.755 of 2017
                                               and O.A.No.949 of 2017


                      1.M/s.Zoho Corporation Private Limited,
                        Plot No.140, No.151, GST Road,
                        Estancia IT Park, Vallanchery,
                        Guduvanchery (Post) Kancheepuram,
                         Tamil Nadu – 603 202
                         Represented by its Director D.Rajendran

                      2.M/s.T & V Holdings Inc.
                        4141 Hacienda Drive,
                        Pleasanton,
                        California 94588, USA Rep. by its director N.Jai Anand     .. Plaintiffs

                                                   Vs.

                      1.M/s.Interestship Career Solutions Private Limited
                        Plot No.200, Jay Ambe Society
                        TalukaDwarka Arambhda
                        Jamnagar, Gujarat – 361647.

                      2.M/s.Zybra Private Limited,
                        71, Chandreshwar Nagar, Near Ray Kanagar,
                        Chandlodia, Ahmedabad
                        Gujarat – 382481.                                   .. Defendants


                            This Civil Suit is preferred, under Order VII Rule 1 and 2 of CPC Read
                      with Section 134 and 135 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, praying to;

                             i) For granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants,
                      their men, servants, agents or anyone claiming through or under them, from
http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                           2

                      in any manner, infringing the plaintiff's registered trade mark 'ZOHO' by
                      using the domain name www.zohobooks.in in any manner, so as to deceive
                      potential customers/clients and soliciting them to use any product other
                      than the software offerings of the first Plaintiff.

                             ii) For granting permanent injunction, restraining the Defendants,
                      their men, servants, agents or anyone claiming through or under them,
                      from, registering or otherwise using any domain name incorporating the
                      plaintiffs' trademark 'ZOHO' or any other similar sounding domain name or
                      using or attempting to use, such domain name or other deceptive means to
                      acquire customers/clients for any software other than those marketed by
                      the Plaintiffs.
                             iii) For granting permanent injunction, restraining the Defendants,
                      their men, servants, agents or anyone claiming through or under them,
                      from, passing off their software offerings or those of any other persons as
                      those of the first Plaintiff.
                             iv) To directing the Defendants to render true and faithful account of
                      the profits earned by each of them through their act of registering the
                      domain name www.zohobooks.in and using the same to lure and solicit
                      customer/clients.
                             v) To directing the defendants to pay the costs of the suit to the
                      Plaintiffs.
                             vi) and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may
                      deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.




                                   For Plaintiff       : Mr.Joseph George Mayiladumpara

                                   For Defendants      : Ms.Rohini Ravikumar




                                                      JUDGMENT

Mr.Joseph George Mayiladumpara, learned counsel on record for both the plaintiffs and M/s.Rohini Ravikumar, learned counsel on record for both the defendants are before this Commercial Division.

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

2. Learned counsel for both the plaintiffs submit that there are instructions from plaintiffs to withdraw the suit. Saying so, learned counsel has made an endorsement in the suit file which reads as follows:

'The suit may be treated as withdrawn, in view of settlement out of court.
Sd/-
(04.01.2019) Counsel for plaintiff'

3. Reiterating the aforesaid endorsement, learned counsel for plaintiffs submit that plaintiffs are not insisting on refund of court fee.

4. In the light of narrative supra, this suit is dismissed as withdrawn.

Consequently, connected application is closed. No order as to costs.

04.01.2019 Index : Yes/No gpa/mp http://www.judis.nic.in 4 M.SUNDAR, J.

gpa/mp C.S.No.755 of 2017 and O.A.No.949 of 2017 04.01.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in