Madras High Court
Manohar Singh vs Manak Fancy on 25 February, 2021
C.S. No.203 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 25.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
C.S. No.203 of 2020
and
O.A.Nos.359, 360, 361, 362 of 2020 and 182 of 2021
and A.Nos.423, 424, 425 of 2021
and A.Nos.1832, 1833 of 2020
Manohar Singh
Proprietor trading as M/s.Singh Mehandi Industries,
160, 10th Block,
Above Annaoorneshwari Nagar Police Station,
Service Road, Outer Ring Road,
Nagarbhavi second Stage,
Bengaluru-560072. .. Plaintiff
/versus/
Manak Fancy,
356 Mint Street, Sowcarpet,
Chennai-600 079. .. Defendant
This Civil Suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the O.S Rules
read with Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, prayed
for a Judgment and Decree:-
1/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.S. No.203 of 2020
A.Permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men,
assigns, servants, agents, officers, distributors, representatives or anyone
claiming through or under them from in any way or manner infringing
Plaintiff's registered trademarks Bansuri by using the mark "BANSURi''
or any other mark which is deceptively similar and/or identical and/or
phonetically similar as that of the Plaintiff's registered trademearks
Bansuri in any way or manner what soever
B.Permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their Men,
assigns, servants, agents, officers, distributors, representatives or anyone
claiming through or under them from in any way or manner passing off
and enabling others to pass off their products by using the mark
"BANSURi" or any other mark and/ or getup and/ or colour combination
that is deceptively and/or phonetically and /or visually similar to that of
the plaintiff's mark Bansuri in any way or manner whatsoever.
C.Permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their men,
assigns, servants, agents, officers, distributors, representatives or anyone
claiming through or under them from in any way of manner infringing the
Plaintiff's copyright over and in respect of his artistic work Bansuri by
use of any work and/ or mark which is identical and / or deceptively
similar to the artistic work of the plaintiff.
D.Permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men,
assigns, servants, agents, officers, distributors, representatives or anyone
2/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.S. No.203 of 2020
claiming through or under them from manufacturing, selling, offering for
sale and distributing, mehandi cones and or any other cosmetic products
using the mark BANSURi and /or any other mark which is deceptively
and /or visually similar to the Plaintiff's mark Bansuri
E.Mandatory injunction directing the Defendants to deliver any
and all articles, labels, dyes, blocks, plates, moulds, screen prints,
cylinders, advertising materials, products, name boards, letter heads,
stationeries, pamphlets, brochures and any other materials of the
defendants bearing the mark "BANSURi" or any other mark that is
identical and /or deceptively and /or phonetically and /or visually similar
to the plaintiff's mark Bansuri and the same be cancelled and / or
destroyed.
F.Decree for a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/-(Rupees Two Crores)
against the defendants jointly and severally for damages suffered by the
plaintiff.
G.In the alternative enquiry be made to ascertain the loss and
damage suffered by the Plaintiff and a decree be passed for such sum as
may be found due upon enquiry against the defendants jointly and
severally.
H.Preliminary decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff
directing the defendants to render true and faithful accounts of profits
3/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.S. No.203 of 2020
earned by them by use of trademark "BANSURi" and/or any other mark
that is deceptively and/or phonetically and/ or visually similar to the mark
Bansuri belonging to the Plaintiff, and a final decree be passed in favour
of the Plaintiff for the amount of profits thus found to have been made by
the defendants after the latter have rendered accounts.
i.Direct the Defendants to pay the costs.
For Plaintiff : M/s.Rajeev Kumar Jain
For fourth Defendant : M/s.R.V.Rukumani
JUDGMENT
Memorandum of Compromise has been filed, which is signed
by the plaintiff and also by the proprietor of the fourth defendant. The
Memorandum of Compromise is dated on 20.01.2020. The year in the
Memorandum of Compromise is wrongly mentioned as 2020 instead of
2021.
2.According to the Memorandum of Compromise, the fourth
defendant had agreed to suffer a decree in terms of prayer in clauses A,
B, C and D. The plaintiff is not pressing for the reliefs sought for in the
prayer in clauses E, F, G, H, I and J.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.S. No.203 of 2020
3.The suit is partly decreed against the fourth defendant with
respect to reliefs in clauses A,B,C and D and dismissed against the fourth
defendant with respect to reliefs in clauses E, F, G, H, I and J. No order
as to Costs.
4The Memorandum of Compromise shall form part of the
decree, which is to be drafted with respect to the fourth defendant alone.
25.02.2021
tta
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.S. No.203 of 2020
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
tta
C.S. No.203 of 2020
25.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
