Madras High Court
Also At vs M/S Jb Enterprises on 2 November, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.11.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
C.S.(Comm.Div) No.755 of 2018
Pradeep Stainless India Pvt. Ltd.
having its factory at No. 5,
Gajapathy Lala Street,
Triplicane, Chennai - 600005
Rep by its Director
Also at
C-3 & B-7, Phase II,
MEPZ, Special Economic Zone,
Tambaram, Chennai - 600 045,
Tamilnadu, India. ...Plaintiff
vs
1. M/s JB Enterprises,
having its factory at
Unit II, A16 (Pt) Phase II,
2nd Main Road,
MEPZ - Special Economic Zone,
Tambaram, Chennai - 600045.
Rep by its Partners
AND ALSO AT
SIPCOT Unit,
G63, Industrial Park,
2nd Main Road, Vallam Vadagal B,
Sriperumbudur,
Chennai - 602105.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
2. V.Jaikumar,
S/o Venkatesan,
C-8, Sriji Hill View Flat,
Durga Nagar, Tambaram Sanatorium,
Chennai – 600045. ..Defendants
.
Prayer: Civil suit filed under Order VII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code,
1908 read with Order IV Rule 1 of O.S.Rules read with Sections 27 and
134 and 135 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 and Sections 51, 55 and 62 of
the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 7 of the Commercial Courts,
Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High
Courts Act No.4 of 2016, praying for the following judgment and decree
a. A perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their distributors,
stockists, printers, servants, agents, retailers, representatives, franchisees
or any other person claiming under/through them from in any manner
infringing the artistic works contained in the Plaintiff's Copyright by
substantial/ total imitation/ counterfeiting of the design and drawings of
which the Plaintiff is the First owner resulting in mould/die
creation/printing/stocking/manufacturing and/or marketing and/or
selling/offering for sale, advertising directly or indirectly and exporting
any such hotpot under the mark/ brand Samirah, Safiya, Shayna, Soraya
and Shamma or any other mark which is/are identical with and/ or
deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's trademarks either per-se or in
combination with any other word/mark, such as PRADEEP or otherwise,
in English or Arabic or any other language, which is identical with and/
or deceptively similar to Plaintiffs' trademarks or in any other manner
whatsoever;
b. A perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their distributors,
stockists, printers, servants, agents, retailers, representatives, franchisees
or any other person claiming under/through them from in any manner
unlawfully violating the Plaintiffs trademark right in their marks such as
Shayna, Shamma, Samar, Shaheen, Samirah, Soraya, Sabihah, Shabnam,
Safiya, Saima, Sparkling Jambo and Ellipse Hotpot or in combination
with any other word/ mark such as PRADEEP either per-se or
individually in English or Arabic or any other language, either reflected
on the hotpot or its packaging or otherwise which is identical with and/
or deceptively similar to Plaintiff's trademarks so as to pass off or enable
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3
others to pass off the Defendant's products viz. hotpot as and for that of
the Plaintiff or wrongfully associate themselves with the Plaintiff's
business or in any other manner whatsoever.
c. A perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, its distributors,
stockists, servants, agents, retailers, representatives, franchisees or any
other person claiming under them from in any manner manufacturing,
selling. offering for sale, stocking, advertising directly or indirectly. any
products, or printing any labels or wrappers or packing materials under
the trademark such as Shayna, Shamma, Samar, Shaheen, Samirah,
Soraya, Sabihah, Shabnam, Safiya, Salma, Sparkling Jumbo and Eilipse
Hotpot either per se or in combination with other mark, like Pradeep or
otherwise and/or any other mark either in English or Arabic or any other
language which is identical / deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs'
trademarks by substantial imitation or by copying the image of the
hotpots of the plaintiff so as to encroach on the trade dress contained in
the hotpots of the Plaintiff under the said brands or in any other manner
whatsoever connected with the Plaintiffs;
d. A Mandatory injunction directing the Defendant to disclos the details
of all the entities in any place(s) to whom/ whe the impugned goods are
being exported and with whom Defendant is acting jointly and in concert
in infringing Plaintiff's copyright and trademarks, passing off the
counterfeit goods as that of genuine goods of the Plaintiff as well as
infringing the copyright contained in the logo on/and the packaging of
the Plaintiff.
e. Direct the Defendants, its promoters, assigns, successors-in interest,
licensees, franchisees, partners, directors, representatives, servants,
distributors, employees, agents etc. or anyone associated with them to
deliver-up/surrender to the Plaintiff for destruction of their entire stock
of dies, drawings, diagrams (in soft or hard copy) products, stationery,
letterheads, signage, reprographic material, packaging, labels or any
other material for advertising, selling or marketing any goods either
bearing the similar trademarks and/or any identical and/or deceptive
variations of the Plaintiff's trade mark or resulting from infringement of
the copyright in the drawings owned by the plaintiff and the Plaintiff's
Trade Dress.;
f. The Defendants be ordered and decreed to pay to the Plaintiffs jointly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
VRI
and severally a sum of Rs. 1,10,00,001/- as damages for acts of Passing
Off and & infringement of copyright committed by the Defendants.
g. A preliminary decree be passed in favour of the Plaintiff directing the
Defendants to render true and proper accounts of sales made by sale of
goods under the trademark and/or by violation of copyrights in the
drawings owned by the plaintiff either per se or in combination with
other mark or any other mark either in English or any other language,
which is identical / deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's trademark and a
final decree be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs for the amount of sales
generated as found to have been made by the Defendants after the latter
have rendered accounts.
h.For costs of the suit;
For Plaintiff : Mr.S.Patrick
JUDGMENT
Learned counsel for the plaintiff circulated a letter dated
22.10.2021 seeking leave of this court to withdraw the suit. The same is
recorded. The suit is dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to cost.
02.11.2021
vri
C.S. No.755 of 2018
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
