Madras High Court
Wipro Limited vs Neelgiri Wood Crafts on 28 June, 2021
C.S.No.214 of 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.S.No.214 of 2006
1.Wipro Limited,
85, TTK Road,
Chennai – 600 018
rep. by its Manager – Legal and Constituted Attorney,
Manoj Kumar Jain
2.Wipro Trade Mark Holdings Ltd,
Doddakannahalli Village
Sarjapur Road,
Bangalore – 560 035.
rep. by its Constituted Attorney
Manoj Kumar Jain ...Plaintiffs
.Vs.
Neelgiri Wood Crafts,
Vill. Jorian,
Radaur Road,
Yamuna Nagar – 135 001.
Haryana ... 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 along with Sections
11, 27, 28, 29, 134, 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Sections 55
Page No.1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.214 of 2006
and 62 of the Copyrights Act, 1957 praying for a judgment and decree
for:
a) A permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their
directors, partners, their officers, servants, agents and representatives
from infringing the plaintiff's registered trademarks WIPRO and
RAINBOW FLOWER by the use of an identical trademark WIPRO and
RAINBOW FLOWER or any mark/s similar thereto or in any other
manner whatsoever;
b) A permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their
directors, partners, their officers, servants, agents and representatives
from passing off and enabling others to pass off the defendants goods as
and for the plaintiff's goods by manufacturing and selling and offering
for sale plywood, wood products or any other product whatsoever under
the trademarks WIPRO, RAINBOW flower logo or any mark/s similar
thereto or in any other manner whatsoever;
c) A permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their
directors, partners, their officers, servants, agents and representatives
from infringing the plaintiff's copyright in the stylized script/ font of the
trademark WIPRO and artistic work RAINBOW FLOWER device by
printing, publishing, selling, offering for sale any product including ply
woods, block wood, wood products or in any manner using the identical
script/ font of the trademark WIPRO and artistic work RAINBOW flower
logo, which are identical with the plaintiff's copyright in the artistic
work, in the stylized script/ font of WIPRO and RAINBOW FLOWER;
Page No.2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.214 of 2006
d) A declaration to the effect that the plaintiff's trademarks
“WIPRO and the RAINBOW FLOWER DEVICE” are well-known
trademarks as stated in the Trademarks Act, 1999;
e) An order for delivery up to the plaintiff or its authorized
representative of all goods, dyes, blocks, labels, pamphlets and any other
printed matter bearing the trademark WIPRO and artistic work
RAINBOW flower logo or any mark similar thereto for destruction;
f) An order for rendition of accounts of profits made by the
defendants on account of use of the trademark WIPRO and RAINBOW
flower logo be made and a decree for the amount so found due be passed
in favour of the plaintiff;
g) The defendants be decreed to pay to the plaintiff a sum of
Rs.10,05,000/- as damages for acts of infringement and passing off
committed by the defendants by using identical trademarks WIPRO and
the RAINBOW flower logo and
h) for costs.
For Plaintiffs : Miss.Chandini Pradeep Kumar
for Mr.A.A.Mohan
For Defendant : Unserved
********
Page No.3/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.214 of 2006
JUDGMENT
The suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking
a) A permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their
directors, partners, their officers, servants, agents and representatives
from infringing the plaintiff's registered trademarks WIPRO and
RAINBOW FLOWER by the use of an identical trademark WIPRO and
RAINBOW FLOWER or any mark/s similar thereto or in any other
manner whatsoever;
b) A permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their
directors, partners, their officers, servants, agents and representatives
from passing off and enabling others to pass off the defendants goods as
and for the plaintiff's goods by manufacturing and selling and offering
for sale plywood, wood products or any other product whatsoever under
the trademarks WIPRO, RAINBOW flower logo or any mark/s similar
thereto or in any other manner whatsoever;
c) A permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their
Page No.4/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.214 of 2006
directors, partners, their officers, servants, agents and representatives
from infringing the plaintiff's copyright in the stylized script/ font of the
trademark WIPRO and artistic work RAINBOW FLOWER device by
printing, publishing, selling, offering for sale any product including ply
woods, block wood, wood products or in any manner using the identical
script/ font of the trademark WIPRO and artistic work RAINBOW flower
logo, which are identical with the plaintiff's copyright in the artistic
work, in the stylized script/ font of WIPRO and RAINBOW FLOWER;
d) A declaration to the effect that the plaintiff's trademarks
“WIPRO and the RAINBOW FLOWER DEVICE” are well-known
trademarks as stated in the Trademarks Act, 1999;
e) An order for delivery up to the plaintiff or its authorized
representative of all goods, dyes, blocks, labels, pamphlets and any other
printed matter bearing the trademark WIPRO and artistic work
RAINBOW flower logo or any mark similar thereto for destruction;
f) An order for rendition of accounts of profits made by the
Page No.5/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.214 of 2006
defendants on account of use of the trademark WIPRO and RAINBOW
flower logo be made and a decree for the amount so found due be passed
in favour of the plaintiff;
g) The defendants be decreed to pay to the plaintiff a sum of
Rs.10,05,000/- as damages for acts of infringement and passing off
committed by the defendants by using identical trademarks WIPRO and
the RAINBOW flower logo and
h) for costs of the suit.
2. Miss.Chandini Pradeed Kumar, learned counsel appearing for
the plaintiffs would submit that the defendant had undertaken not to use
the impugned trademark WIPRO. She has also produced a letter dated
05.04.2006. Though, the said letter does not in terms read as an
undertaking not to use the trademark, the learned counsel appearing for
the plaintiffs would submit that the defendant has stopped using the
trademark of the plaintiffs and therefore nothing survives in the suit.
Page No.6/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.214 of 2006
3. 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,
2015, liberty is however reserved to take action if there is any
infringement in future.
28.06.2021
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 defendants: Nil
List of Exhibits marked on the side of the defendants: Nil
28.06.2021
dsa
Page No.7/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.214 of 2006
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
dsa
C.S.No.214 of 2006
28.06.2021
Page No.8/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
