Mr.T.G.Arumugam vs Mr.T.G.Harigopal
2021 Latest Caselaw 15987 Mad

                                                                         C.S.(Com.Div.) No.255 of 2020
                                                                               and O.A.No.471 of 2020
                                                                    & A.Nos.743 of 2021 & 2622 of 2020

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    Dated : 05.08.2021

                                                        CORAM:

                             THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

                                             C.S.(Com.Div.) No.255 of 2020
                                                and O.A.No.471 of 2020
                                           & A.Nos.743 of 2021 & 2622 of 2020

                     Mr.T.G.Arumugam,
                     S/o.T.S.Ganesan,
                     31A/C, 1st Street, New Colony,
                     VOC Nagar, Anna Nagar East,
                     Chennai-600 102                                                   ...Plaintiff
                                                         /versus/

                     1.Mr.T.G.Harigopal,
                     S/o. T.S.Ganesan,
                     No.16, New Street, Mannady,
                     Chennai-600 001.

                     2.Mr.T.S.Ganesan,
                     S/o.T.Sambandamurthy Chetty,
                     No.16, New Street, Mannady,
                     Chennai-600 001.                                                  .. Defendants

                                    This Civil Suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1 Original Side
                     Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of CPC and under Sections 134 and
                     135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999a. Declaring that the alleged Deed of
                     Assignment dated 05.09.2019 executed between the Defendants is sham


                     1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                        C.S.(Com.Div.) No.255 of 2020
                                                                              and O.A.No.471 of 2020
                                                                   & A.Nos.743 of 2021 & 2622 of 2020

                     and nominal and not binding on the Plaintiff in any manner whatsoever;
                                   b. Declaring that the Plaintiff has the sole and exclusive
                     proprietorship over the registered trademark UMBRELLA BRAND
                     registered under No.200391 in class 34;
                                   c. Granting a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants
                     by themselves, their men, servant, agents, representatives, assigns or any
                     one claiming through it from in any manner interfering with the use and
                     exclusively proprietorship of the trademark UMBRELLA BRAND or
                     any mark deceptively similar thereto in any manner whatsoever;
                                   d. Directing the Defendants to pay to the Plaintiff the cost of
                     the suit.
                                             For Plaintiff        : Mr.S.Diwakar
                                             For Defendants       : Ms.Gladys Danial for D1
                                                                  : Mr.R.Sathishkumar for D2

                                                       JUDGMENT

The suit is filed for permanent injunction and other

consequential relief in respect of the registered trademark UMBRELLA

BRAND for class 34.

2. The dispute is between the father and son on one side and

the other son on other side. Now the parties have agreed to coexist in the

business by sharing the area of operation and using the same trademark

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.(Com.Div.) No.255 of 2020 and O.A.No.471 of 2020 & A.Nos.743 of 2021 & 2622 of 2020

UMBRELLA BRAND for their product.

3. For the said purpose they agreed to approach the Registrar of

Trademark and to record the proprietorship upon both the parties. The

compromise has been arrived between the parties to the above fact on

03.08.2021 and the same is filed before this Court.

4. In the light of the settlement arrived between the parties, the

suit is decreed in terms of Memo of Compromise. The terms of Memo of

Compromise shall form part of the decree. Consequently, all other

connected applications are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

05.08.2021 Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order Index : yes/no rpl

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

rpl

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.(Com.Div.) No.255 of 2020 and O.A.No.471 of 2020 & A.Nos.743 of 2021 & 2622 of 2020

C.S.(Com.Div.) No.255 of 2020 and O.A.No.471 of 2020 & A.Nos.743 of 2021 & 2622 of 2020

05.08.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/