Madras High Court
Parle Products Limited vs Bakemans Industries Limited on 20 July, 2021
C.S.No.204 of 1998
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.S.No.204 of 1998
and
A.No.5439 of 2010
Parle Products Limited,
Nirlon House,
254 B, Dr.Annie Besant Road,
Mumbai – 400 025.
Represented by its Duly
Constituted Attorney and
Legal Executive. ...Plaintiff
.Vs.
Bakemans Industries Limited,
A-5/B-1 Mohan Co-op.IndI.Estate
Badarpur
New Delhi – 110 044. ... Defendant
Plaint filed under Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure
read with Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules and Sections 105
and 106 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 praying for a
judgment and decree against the defendant:
Page No.1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.204 of 1998
a) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its
servants, agents, distributors, stockist or anyone acting under or through
it from in any manner manufacturing, marketing, distributing or selling
its product under the mark GLUCOGOLD or any other mark deceptively
similar to that of the plaintiff's mark GLUCO thereby infringing the
plaintiff's mark GLUCO;
b) Direct the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- or such sum
that may be found on taking account as damages. The plaintiff
undertakes to pay the additional Court fees on taking of such accounts;
c) An order for delivery of all impugned finished goods, cartons,
packing material, visual aids, catalogues, price lists, literature and
advertisement bearing or containing the mark GLUCOGOLD or any
other mark similar to that of the plaintiff for purpose of destruction and
d) for costs of the suit.
For Plaintiff : Mr.S.P.Chokalingam
For Defendant : Mr.N.Damodharan,
Official Liquidator
********
Page No.2/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.204 of 1998
JUDGMENT
The suit is one for infringement of trade mark and for damages.
2. Mr.S.P.Chokalingam, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff
would submit that the defendant Company has been wound up and the
liquidator has been appointed by the Delhi High Court.
3. The liquidator appointed by the Delhi High Court has filed a
status report stating that the defendant is no longer manufacturing any of
the products that are subject matter of this suit.
4. Hence, the cause of action for infringement does not survive.
May be, the plaintiff has cause of action for damages, but, in view of the
fact that the defendant Company is under liquidation, it will not be
worthwhile for the plaintiff to pursue the said cause of action.
5. Hence, the suit is dismissed under Rule 3(a) of Order XIII A of
the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by the Commercial Courts Act,
Page No.3/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.204 of 1998
2015. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is
closed. It is made clear that any observations made in the interim orders
vacating the injunction granted by this Court will not affect the rights of
the plaintiff in any other similar proceedings, as those observations relate
to existence of a prima-facie case only and the matter was not dispose of
by this Court on evidence.
20.07.2021
dsa
Index : No
Internet : Yes
Non-Speaking order
List of the witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiff: Nil
List of Exhibits marked on the side of the plaintiff : Nil
List of the witnesses examined on the side of the defendant: Nil
List of Exhibits marked on the side of the defendant: Nil
20.07.2021
dsa
Page No.4/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.204 of 1998
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
dsa
C.S.No.204 of 1998
20.07.2021
Page No.5/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
