Madras High Court
M.M.Sheik Dawood vs Sivakumar on 11 April, 2022
C.S.No.219 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated :11.04.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
C.S.[Commercial Div] No.219 of 2008
1. M.M.Sheik Dawood
2. M/s AL -Adil Exports,
Partnership firm, rep. By its
Partner, Mohamad Riza
15, Lake Area, 6th Cross Street,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 0034 ... Plaintiffs
Vs.
1. Sivakumar
2. M/s V.G.Keshwala & Sons
P.O.Box No.17, Kampala,
Uganda ...Defendants
Civil Suit filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC r/w Order IV Rule 1 of
High Court O.S.Rules and Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act,
1999, Section 55 & 62 of the Copy Right Act, 1957 for the following prayers
(a) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men,
agents, servants or any one claiming through them from in any manner
infringing the plaintiff's registered Trade Mark 'BABY' by using the
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.219 of 2008
offending the Trade Mark label TOTO with the device of 'Baby' or any other
Trade Mark or device which is identical or deceptively similar to or a
colourable imitation to that of the plaintiff's registered trade mark and Trade
Mark Label 'BABY'
(b) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men,
agents, servants or any one claiming through them from in any manner
passing off the goods of the defendants as that of the plaintiff's by using
the offending Trade mark label TOTO with the device of Baby as and for
the trade mark of the plaintiff 'BABY' or any other Trade mark Label /
device which is similar / deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff's
registered trade mark 'BABY'.
(c) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men,
agents, servants or any one claiming through them from in any manner
infringing the plaintiff's copyright over the artistic work in the trade mark
label 'BABY' by using the offending Trade Mark label TOTO with the device
of Baby or any other trade mark label which is identical or colourable
reproduction of the plaintiff's artistic work in the trade mark label 'BABY'
(d) To Direct the defendants to surrender to the plaintiff the entire
stocks, boxes with the infringing trademark and unused infringing Trade
Mark label together with blocks and dies for destruction.
2/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.219 of 2008
(e) To direct the defendants to render a true and faithful accounts of
the profits earned by them through the sale of their products bearing the
infringing trademark label which is similar or deceptively similar to the
plaintiff's trade mark and copyrighted label 'BABY' and directing the
payment of such profits to the plaintiff.
(f) To direct the defendants to pay the costs of the suit to the plaintiff.
(g) To grant such further or other relief.
For Plaintiff : No appearance
For Defendants : Set Exparte on 04.08.2021
Name printed – No appearance
JUDGMENT
On an earlier occasion, viz., 04.08.2021, since the suit is for
infringement of a trademark, this Court took cognizance of the suit.
Though the defendants were served, they have not entered appearance,
therefore, the defendants were set exparte and directed the matter to be
listed before learned Additional Master III for recording exparte evidence on
06.09.2021.
2. Subsequently, before the learned Master for recording exparte
evidence, on 06.09.2021, the plaintiff counsel as well as witness were not
present, hence the suit was adjourned to 01.10.2021, 02.11.2021,
02.12.2021, 11.01.2022, 11.02.2022 again, the plaintiff as well as witness
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.219 of 2008
were not present, hence the matter was adjourned to 03.03.2022. On
03.03.2022, before the learned Master, the learned counsel for the plaintiff
represented that he is not appearing for the plaintiff and there is other
counsel, in Ms.4512/18 for plaintiff, therefore, sought to delete his name
and hence the learned master directed the Registry to post the case before
this Court.
3. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 04.04.2022, there is
no representation for the plaintiff and hence this Court directed to post the
case under the caption 'for dismissal' on 11.04.2022. Today, on
11.04.2022, the learned counsel submitted that he is not the counsel for
the plaintiff and seeks time to file vakalath. After giving numerous
opportunities, the learned counsel has not chosen to file vakalath to
represent the plaintiff and though the name of the defendants were printed
in the cause list, there is no appearance by the defendants also, hence the
present suit is dismissed for non-prosecution.
16.03.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking /Non-Speaking Judgment
ssd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.219 of 2008
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.,
ssd
C.S.[Commercial Div] No.219 of 2008
11.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
