Madras High Court
Nagarjuna Agrichem Ltd vs Crop Life Science Ltd on 21 September, 2021
C.S.No.145 of 2012
and A.Nos.1988, 1989 & 1990 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.S.No.145 of 2012
and
A.Nos.1988, 1989 & 1990 of 2013
Nagarjuna Agrichem Ltd.,
MD Chambers, New No.53,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai - 600004. ...Plaintiff
Vs.
Crop Life Science Ltd.,
209, 'Primate',
Near Judges Bunglow Cross Road,
Bodakdev, Ahmedbad - 380015,
Gujarat. ...Defendant
Prayer: Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the original side rules and
Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C., r/w. Sections 27, 134 & 135 of the Trademarks
Act, 1999 and Sections 51, 55 and 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957, praying as
follows:-
a) a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, by itself, its
distributors, stockists, servants, agents, retailers, marketers, advertisers,
dealers, legal representatives or any other person claiming under them from
in any manner infringing the plaintiff's copyright in the artistic work 'device
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.145 of 2012
and A.Nos.1988, 1989 & 1990 of 2013
of a leaf' by use of an identical device of a leaf or any other device, which is
a substantial reproduction of plaintiff's artistic work 'device of a leaf' in
colour scheme, getup, layout and arrangement of features amounting to
infringement of copyright of artistic work or in any other manner
whatsoever;
b) a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, by itself, its
distributors, stockists, servants, agents, retailers, marketers advertisers,
dealers, legal representatives or any other person claiming under them from
in any manner manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, stocking,
advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in insecticides under the
trademarks PROFIX and/or PROFIX SUPER or any other mark deceptively
similar to plaintiff's trade marks PROFEX and / or PROFEX SUPER with
identical colour scheme, get-up, layout, shape and size of carton so as to
pass off their products as and for the plaintiff's products under the said
marks or in any manner whatsoever;
c) the Defendant be ordered to pay to the plaintiff a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- as liquidated damages for committing acts of infringement
against Plaintiff's copyright in artistic works and to pass off their products
as and for the Plaintiff's products;
d) the Defendant be ordered and decreed to deliver up for
destruction to the Plaintiff all labels, dyes, blocks, plates, moulds, screen
prints, packing materials, stationery and other materials belonging to the
defendant in the nature of passing off their products as and for the plaintiff's
prior adopted and distinctive trademarks PROFEX and PROFEX SUPER
2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.145 of 2012
and A.Nos.1988, 1989 & 1990 of 2013
with the almost identical trademarks PROFIX and PROFIX SUPER and
infringing the copyright in the unique artistic work in 'device of a leaf' and
identical artistic work.
e) a preliminary decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff
directing the Defendant to render accounts of profits made by them by use
of the almost identical / deceptively similar trade marks PROFIX and
PROFIX SUPER and the identical device of leaf and a final decree be
passed in favour of the Plaintiff for the amount of profits found to have been
made by the Defendant after the latter has rendered accounts;
f) for costs of the entire proceedings.
For Plaintiff : Mr.Keerthi Kiran for
Mr.Arun C.Mohan
For Defendant : Mrs.K.Paameshwari
JUDGMENT
The suit is one for infringement trademark and passing off the
plaintiff's registered trademarks “PROFEX” and “PROFEX SUPER”. The
plaintiff would seek reliefs of injunction claiming that the defendant is
using trademarks 'Profex' and 'Profex Super', which are deceptively similar
to the registered marks of the plaintiff.
2.It is seen from the records that an order of injunction is granted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.145 of 2012
and A.Nos.1988, 1989 & 1990 of 2013
on 09.03.2012. The defendant has filed an affidavit stating that it has
stopped manufacturing goods under the disputed trademarks “PROFIX” and
“PROFIX SUPER” and it is also stated that the defendant does not intend
manufacturing or selling products with the above said trademark. The said
affidavit is taken on record.
3.In view of the undertaking given by the defendant, this suit is
dismissed of having become infructuous. No costs. Consequently,
connected applications are closed.
21.09.2021
kkn
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.145 of 2012
and A.Nos.1988, 1989 & 1990 of 2013
List of witness and documents filed on the side of the plaintiff:
Nil
List of witness and documents filed on the side of the defendant:
Nil
21.09.2021
kkn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.145 of 2012
and A.Nos.1988, 1989 & 1990 of 2013
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
KKN
C.S.No.145 of 2012
and
A.Nos.1988, 1989 & 1990 of 2013
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.145 of 2012
and A.Nos.1988, 1989 & 1990 of 2013
21.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
