Karnataka High Court
Indus Tmt Industries Ltd vs M/S Mega Steel Industries on 14 February, 2022
Bench: M.I.Arun
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.I. ARUN
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.1 OF 2022
C/W
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.2 OF 2022
IN O.S. NO.1/2022:
BETWEEN:
1. INDUS TMT INDUSTRIES LTD
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
COMPANIES ACT, 2013,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.37 KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD
TATA SILK FARM
OPP. KAMALA NEHRU SCHOOL
BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560 004
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR. ANAND, MANAGER
...PLAINTIFF
(BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. HARIKRISHNA S. HOLLA &
SMT. APARNA S. PAI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. M/S MEGA STEEL INDUSTRIES
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING ITS MANUFACTURING UNIT AT
2
SY NO.145-1, 146-2B
GOLLAPURAM
HINDUPUR-515 211
ANDHRA PRADESH
BY ITS PARTNERS MR KUMAR IYER
MR SUBRAMANI AND MR BALAJI
2.MR. KUMAR IYER
PARTNER
MEGA STEEL INDUSTRIES
FRIENDS COLONY ROAD
BESIDE RITU HOSPITAL
FRIEND COLONY
GUBBAALALA
BENGALURU-560 062.
3. MR. SUBRAMANI
PARTNER
MEGA STEEL INDUSTRIES
FRIENDS COLONY ROAD
BESIDE RITU HOSPITAL
FRIEND COLONY
GUBBALALA
BENGALURU-560 062.
4. MR. BALAJI
PARTNER
MEGA STEEL INDUSTRIES
FRIENDS COLONY ROAD
BESIDE RITU HOSPITAL
FRIEND COLONY
GUBBALALA
BENGALURU-560 062.
...DEFENDANTS
(BY SRI. GANAPATI HEGDE &
SRI. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADVOCATES)
3
THIS ORIGINAL SUIT IS FILED UNDER ORDER VII
RULES 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 26 OF C.P.C. READ
WITH SECTION 134 OF THE TRADEMARK ACT, 1999 READ
WITH SECTION 22 OF DESIGNS ACT, 2000, PRAYING TO
GRANT JUDGMENT AND DECREE:
(I) GRANTING PERMANENT INJUNCTION RESTRAINING
DEFENDANTS BY THEMSELVES, THEIR SERVANTS,
LICENSEES, FRANCHISEES, DEALERS, REPRESENTATIVES
OR AGENTS OR OUTSOURCING MANUFACTURER OR JOB
WORKERS OR CONVERSION MANUFACTURERS OR
ANYONE CLAIMING THROUGH OR UNDER FROM IN ANY
MANNER INFRINGING THE PLAINTIFF'S TRADEMARK BY
USING THE MARK "INDEX GOLD" "IG INDEX' OR 'IG INDEX
GOLD" OR ANY OTHER NAME, MARK, LABEL ETC. WHICH
ARE DECEPTIVELY SIMILAR TO PLAINTIFF'S REGISTERED
TRADEMARKS INDUS INCLUDING SELLING, TRADING,
MANUFACTURING, DEALING OF PRODUCTS;
(II) GRANTING PERMANENT INJUNCTION RESTRAINING
DEFENDANTS BY THEMSELVES, THEIR SERVANTS,
LICENSEES, FRANCHISEES, DEALERS, REPRESENTATIVES
OR AGENTS OR ANYONE CLAIMING THROUGH THEM FROM
IN ANY MANNER PASSING OFF THE GOODS OF THE
DEFENDANT BY USE OF THE MARK "INDEX GOLD" "IG
INDEX' OR 'IG INDEX GOLD" OR ANY OTHER NAME, MARK,
4
LABEL ETC. WHICH ARE DECEPTIVELY SIMILAR TO
PLAINTIFF'S TRADEMARK INDUS.
(III) GRANTING PERMANENT INJUNCTION RESTRAINING
DEFENDANTS BY THEMSELVES, THEIR SERVANTS,
LICENSEES, FRANCHISEES, DEALERS, REPRESENTATIVES
OR AGENTS OR ANYONE CLAIMING THROUGH THEM FROM
IN ANY MANNER INFRINGING THE PLAINTIFF'S
REGISTERED DESIGN BEARING NO.283226 BY USING ANY
DESIGN SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE REGISTERED DESIGN
OF THE PLAINTIFF;
(IV) DIRECTING THE DEFENDANTS TO SURRENDER TO
PLAINTIFF THE ENTIRE STOCK OF UNUSED OFFENDING
HOARDINGS, BILLS, TINS, NEGATIVES, POSITIVES,
TRANSPARENCIES, BLOCKS FOR DESTRUCTION;
(V) DIRECTING THE DEFENDANTS TO RENDER TO THE
PLAINTIFF HONESTLY AND FAITHFULLY ACCOUNT OF
PROFIT THAT DEFENDANTS HAVE DERIVED BY USING
TRADEMARK OF THE PLAINTIFF AND
(VI) DIRECT DEFENDANTS TO PAY DAMAGES TO THE
PLAINTIFF AND
5
(VII) DIRECT DEFENDANTS TO PAY COSTS OF THE SUIT
TO PLAINTIFF ETC. ETC. AND
ANY OTHER ORDER AS THE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
IN O.S. NO.2/2022:
BETWEEN:
1. INDUS TMT INDUSTRIES LTD
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
COMPANIES ACT, 2013
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.37, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD
TATA SILK FARM,
OPP. KAMALA NEHRU SCHOOL
BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560 004
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR. ANAND, MANAGER
...PLAINTIFF
(BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. HARIKRISHNA S. HOLLA &
SMT. APARNA S. PAI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. MR. MOHAMMED BILAL
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
MAJOR
RESIDING AT NO.68, 24TH WARD
CHIKKAPETE
DODDABALLAPUR TOWN
BANGALORE RURAL-561 203.
6
2. MRS. NARSEEN TAJ
PROPRIETRIX
A.H. ISPAT
D CROSS, DODDABALLAPUR
BANGALORE RURAL-561 203.
...DEFENDANTS
(BY SRI. GANAPATI HEGDE &
SRI. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADVOCATES)
THIS ORIGINAL SUIT IS FILED UNDER ORDER VII
RULES 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 26 OF C.P.C. READ
WITH SECTION 134 OF THE TRADEMARK ACT, 1999 READ
WITH SECTION 22 OF DESIGNS ACT, 2000, PRAYING TO
GRANT JUDGMENT AND DECREE:
(I) GRANTING PERMANENT INJUNCTION RESTRAINING
DEFENDANTS BY THEMSELVES, THEIR SERVANTS,
LICENSEES, FRANCHISEES, DEALERS, REPRESENTATIVES
OR AGENTS OR OUTSOURCING MANUFACTURER OR JOB
WORKERS OR CONVERSION MANUFACTURERS OR
ANYONE CLAIMING THROUGH OR UNDER FROM IN ANY
MANNER INFRINGING THE PLAINTIFF'S TRADEMARK BY
USING THE MARK "INDEX GOLD" "IG INDEX' OR 'IG INDEX
GOLD" OR ANY OTHER NAME, MARK, LABEL ETC. WHICH
ARE DECEPTIVELY SIMILAR TO PLAINTIFF'S REGISTERED
TRADEMARKS INDUS INCLUDING SELLING, TRADING,
MANUFACTURING, DEALING OF PRODUCTS;
7
(II) GRANTING PERMANENT INJUNCTION RESTRAINING
DEFENDANTS BY THEMSELVES, THEIR SERVANTS,
LICENSEES, FRANCHISEES, DEALERS, REPRESENTATIVES
OR AGENTS OR ANYONE CLAIMING IN ANY MANNER
PASSING OFF THE GOODS OF THE DEFENDANT BY USE OF
THE MARK "INDEX GOLD" "IG INDEX' OR 'IG INDEX GOLD"
OR ANY OTHER NAME, MARK, LABEL ETC. WHICH ARE
DECEPTIVELY SIMILAR TO PLAINTIFF'S TRADEMARK
INDUS.
(III) GRANTING PERMANENT INJUNCTION RESTRAINING
DEFENDANTS BY THEMSELVES, THEIR SERVANTS,
LICENSEES, FRANCHISEES, DEALERS, REPRESENTATIVES
OR AGENTS OR ANYONE CLAIMING THROUGH THEM FROM
IN ANY MANNER INFRINGING THE PLAINTIFF'S
REGISTERED DESIGN BEARING NO.283226 BY USING ANY
DESIGN SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE REGISTERED DESIGN
OF THE PLAINTIFF;
(IV) DIRECTING THE DEFENDANTS TO SURRENDER TO
PLAINTIFF THE ENTIRE STOCK OF UNUSED OFFENDING
HOARDINGS, BILLS, TINS, NEGATIVES, POSITIVES,
TRANSPARENCIES, BLOCKS FOR DESTRUCTION;
(V) DIRECTING THE DEFENDANTS TO RENDER TO THE
PLAINTIFF HONESTLY AND FAITHFULLY ACCOUNT OF
8
PROFIT THAT DEFENDANTS HAVE DERIVED BY USING
TRADEMARK OF THE PLAINTIFF AND
(VI) DIRECT DEFENDANTS TO PAY DAMAGES TO THE
PLAINTIFF AND
(VII) DIRECT DEFENDANTS TO PAY COSTS OF THE SUIT
TO PLAINTIFF ETC. ETC. AND
ANY OTHER ORDER AS THE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THESE ORIGINAL SUITS ALONG WITH I.A. NOS.2
AND 3 OF 2021, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON I.As. THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has filed two
separate memos dated 12.01.2022 in both these Original
Suits, with a prayer to delete paragraph No.3 in the prayer
column of the plaint which is a prayer under the provisions
of the Designs Act, 2000. The respondents have no
objection for deleting the same. Accordingly, plaintiff is
permitted to delete paragraph No.3 in the prayer column
of the plaint in both the Original Suits.
Having deleted the prayer pertaining to the Designs
Act, 2000, the Original Suits have to be transferred to the
Trial Court to resolve other pending disputes between the
parties. Hence, the matter stands remanded back to the
Trial Court to resolve remaining disputes between the
parties.
Parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court
on 28.02.2022 without further notice.
Office to send back the Trial Court records along with
a copy of this Judgment, forthwith.
Both the Original Suits stand disposed of accordingly.
Consequently, the pending I.A. Nos.2/2021 and 3/2021 in
both the Original Suits are disposed of as not surviving for
consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE
sac*
