Madras High Court
M/S. Mohan Breweries And Distilleries vs M/S. Joe Products on 16 July, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 MAD 535
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16.07.2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN C.S.No. 208 of 1997 M/s. Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Private Ltd., represented by its Company Secretary Mr.T.Krishnamurthy ... Plaintiffs Vs. M/s. Joe Products ... Defendants PRAYER: This Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 O.S. Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of CPC, read with 53 of the Designs Act 1911, praying for a Judgment and Decree: (a) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants, agents, or any one claiming through them from in any manner infringing the plaintiffs' copyright in the registered design in respect of bottles under No. 165315 either by manufacturing the bottles which are identical or in any manner similar to that of the plaintiffs' registered design bottles or using the plaintiffs' registered bottles for filling up of defendant' products and marketing the same with the plaintiffs' registered design bottles. (b) granting a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to surrender to the plaintiffs, all the bottles, dies, carts, blocks and all other mechanical devices, used for the purpose of manufacturing bottles identical with the bottles designed by the plaintiffs as per the plaintiffs' registered design No. 165315, under the Designs Act, 1911; (c) directing the defendants to pay the plaintiffs, a sum of Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand only) towards damages, under Section 53(2)(b) of the Designs Act, 1911; and (d) for costs of this action. *** For Plaintiffs : No appearance JUDGMENT
The suit had been filed under Section 53 of the Designs Act, 1911 as amended.
2. It had been filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the plaintiffs' Copyright for the registered design with respect to bottles. Since the suit had been filed to protect the intellectual property right of the plaintiffs, this Commercial Division has jurisdiction to examine the issues raised by the plaintiff.
3. It seen that the suit had been instituted in the year 1997. No steps have been taken to serve the defendants. The plaintiffs were directed to file an affidavit whether the cause of action still survives. Affidavit has also not been filed. The plaintiffs are not interested in pursuing with the reliefs sought. The plaintiffs appear to have abandoned the cause of action for filing the suit.
4. Office had put up a note stating that the plaintiffs have not taken steps for the past 21 years to serve the defendants. Today, the suit is posted under the caption 'for dismissal'. There is a representation by a person, who has not identified himself on behalf of the plaintiff, though the plaintiff is represented by counsel. Hence, the Suit is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs.
vsg 16.07.2018
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No.
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Vsg
C.S.No. 208 of 1997
16.07.2018