Madras High Court
Mr.G.Sakthivel vs Ms.D.Anusha on 3 September, 2019
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
C.S.No.812 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 03.09.2019
Coram
The Honourable Mr.Justice N.SATHISH KUMAR
C.S.(Comm.)No.785 of 2018
and O.A.Nos.1082 & 1083 of 2018
Mr.G.Sakthivel
Proprietor of ShriHari Process
No.92/4, Angeripalayalam road,
Opp. Bishop School,
Tirupur – 641 603.
Tamil Nadu.
...Plaintiff
Versus
Ms.D.Anusha, (Amended as per order dated
Proprietrix of Aura Properties, 31.01.2019 in A.No.471 of 2019)
No.333, Poonamallee High Road,
Aminjikarai,
Chennai – 600 029.
...Defendant
This suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1 O.S.Rules r/w. Order VII Rule
1 of C.P.C, Sections 27, 28, 29, 134 & 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999
and Section 7 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and
Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, No.4 of 2016 for the
following reliefs:
(a) a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, themselves,
their respective proprietors/directors/partners as the case may be,
successors-in-business, servants, agents, distributors, dealers, stockists,
shop keepers, wholesalers, retailers, representatives, assigns and all
other persons claiming through or under them from infringing the
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/4
C.S.No.812 of 2018
registered trademark/device of distorted triangles of the plaintiff by
marketing, promoting their services under the deceptively similar
mark/device of distorted triangles or any other similar or identical or
deceptively similar mark/device/logo and in any other manner
whatsoever;
(b) a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, themselves,
their respective proprietors/directors/partners as the case may be,
successors-in-business, servants, agents, distributors, dealers, stockists,
shop keepers, wholesalers, retailers, representatives, assigns and all
other persons claiming through or under them from marketing, promoting
and advertising their services which would amount to passing off their
services as and for the goods of the plaintiff or as being in some way
connected with the plaintiff by using the deceptively similar mark/device
of distorted triangles or any other mark similar or identical or deceptively
similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark/device of distorted triangles
and in any other manner whatsoever;
(c) the defendant be ordered to surrender to the plaintiff for
destruction of all goods viz., pamphlets, banners, brochures, labels,
cartons, dyes, blocks, screen prints, advertisement materials, packing
materials and other goods containing the mark/device of distorted
triangles or any other mark similar or identical or deceptively similar to
plaintiff's registered trademark/device of distorted triangles;
(d) the defendant be ordered to pay to the plaintiff a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) as damages for committing acts of
infringement of trademark and passing off;
(e) a preliminary decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff directing
the defendant to render true and faithful account of profits earned by
them by use of trademark/device of distorted triangles, which is
deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark/device of
http://www.judis.nic.in
2/4
C.S.No.812 of 2018
distorted triangles and a final decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff
for the amount of profits thus found to have been made by the defendant
after the latter has rendered accounts;
(f) for entire costs of the suit.
For Plaintiff : Mr.Sheetal Srikanth
for Mr.Arun C Mohan
For Defendant : Mr.A.Prasana Venkat
for M/s.APR Associates
JUDGMENT
Today(03.09.2019), when the matter is called, the learned counsel appearing for the defendant has filed a Memo before this Court stating that the defendant has changed their logo.
2. The learned counsel for plaintiff prayed that the Memo filed by the defendant's counsel may be recorded by this Court.
3. The said Memo is taken on record.
4. In view of the aforesaid Memo filed by the defendant's counsel, this Court feels that it would be appropriate to restrain the defendant from using the plaintiff's logo. Accordingly, there shall be judgment and decree for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, themselves, their http://www.judis.nic.in 3/4 C.S.No.812 of 2018 N.SATHISH KUMAR, J., mrr respective proprietors/directors/partners as the case may be, successors- in-business, servants, agents, distributors, dealers, stockists, shop keepers, wholesalers, retailers, representatives, assigns and all other persons claiming through or under them from infringing the registered trademark/device of distorted triangles of the plaintiff by marketing, promoting their services under the deceptively similar mark/device of distorted triangles or any other similar or identical or deceptively similar mark/device/logo and in any other manner whatsoever.
5. In the result, this Civil Suit is decreed with the above observation. No costs. Consequently, connected Applications are closed.
03.09.2019 mrr Index : Yes/No C.S.(Comm.)No.785 of 2018 http://www.judis.nic.in 4/4