Madras High Court
A.Rajendran vs Thenandal Studios Limited on 4 March, 2021
C.S.No.747 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
C.S.No.747 of 2017
A.Rajendran,
S/o.P.V.Alagarswamy Naidu,
Proprietor A R Film Factori,
No.4/30, NRN Colony,
Thirumangalam Road, Villivakkam,
Chennai - 600 049. ... Plaintiff
..Vs..
1.Thenandal Studios Limited,
Represented by its Director N.Ramasamy
No.15, Old No.8,
Lake Area 5th Street,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai - 600 034.
2.N.Ramasamy,
Proprietor Sri Thenandal Films,
2/8, 80ft Road, Devar Garden,
Saligramam,
Chennai - 600 093. ... Defendants
PRAYER : Plaint filed under and Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side
Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure read with
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.747 of 2017
Sections 134 and 135 of Trademarks Act, prayed for a Judgment and
Decree:-
(a) By way of a Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants,
their men, agents, servants, or anyone acting through them from passing off
the title "MERRASALAITAN" with "MERSAL".
(b) Directing the defendant to pay the cost of the suit.
For Plaintiff : Mr.A.V.Arun
For Defendants : Mr.R.Parthasarathy for D1
Ms.R.Suriya Sivakumar for D2
*******
JUDGMENT
The suit had been filed under Sections 134 and 135 of the
Trademarks Act, 1999, seeking protection from passing off the title
MERRASALAITAN with MERSAL and also for costs.
2. Since the lis involved is an attempt to protect the Intellectual
Property Right with respect to the mark MERRASALAITAN, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.747 of 2017
Commercial Division of this Court has jurisdiction to examine the lis under
Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
3. A perusal of the notespaper reveals that the interim injunction
application came up for consideration originally on 22.09.2017 and ad-
interim injunction was granted restraining the respondents from taking any
further action. Thereafter, the injunction application came up for
consideration on again 06.10.2017 when the learned Single Judge after
examining the issues in depth had dismissed the injunction application.
4. I am informed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that an
Original Side Appeal in O.S.A.No.280 of 2017 was then filed and the same
was also dismissed on 13.10.2017. Thereafter, the plaintiff appears to have
faded away and did not come forward to give instructions to the learned
counsel for the plaintiff. As is obvious in matters of similar nature, the
plaint either survives or is abandoned depending on the order granted in the
injunction application.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.747 of 2017
5. In this case, the injunction application had been dismissed. It is
only natural that the plaintiff had taken a sensible decision not to move
further pursuing the suit.
6. The matter was thereafter listed only on 25.01.2021 and again
on 09.02.2021 and again on 23.02.2021. It has been listed today i.e., on
04.03.2021. The learned counsel for the plaintiff again reiterated that the
plaintiff had not come forward to instruct him with the further course of
action to be taken.
7. In view of these facts, the suit is dismissed for non-prosecution.
No order as to costs.
04.03.2021
Index : Yes / No
Web : Yes / No
rna
C.S.No.747 of 2017
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
