Madras High Court
(Comm.Suit) vs Jayapriya Food Products Private ... on 31 January, 2022
C.S.No.399 of 2020
(Comm.Suit)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 31.01.2022
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N.ANAND VEKATESH
Civil Suit No.399 of 2020
(Comm.Suit)
and
A.Nos.774, 775, 776, 777, 778, 3251 of 2021 and O.A.Nos.746, 747 &
748 of 2020
1. Mr.S.Sudhakar,
No.84, M.C.Road,
Old Washermenpet,
Chennai-600 021.
2. Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd.,
No.9, N.N.Garden,
10th Street, Chennai-600 021,
Rep.by its Managing Director,
Mr.S.Sudhakar.
3. Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods,
No.10, N.N.Garden,
10th Street, Chennai-600 021,
Rep.by its Partner,
Mr.S.Sudhakar.
4. Adhavan Agros,
No.84, M.C.Road,
Old Washermenpet,
Chennai 600 021,
Represented by its Partner
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.399 of 2020
(Comm.Suit)
S.Sudhakar .. Plaintiffs
.vs.
1. Jayapriya Food Products Private Limited,
No.37, Siva Vishnu Complex, 2nd Floor,
Natesan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.
Represented by its Managing Director
Mr.Chinnasamy Rajagopalan Jayasankar.
2. Mr.Chinnasamy Rajagopalan Jayasankar,
Managing Director,
Jayapriya Food Products Private Limited,
No.37, Siva Vishnu Complex, 2nd Floor,
Natesan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.
3. Ms.Rangasami Kasthuri,
Director,
Jayapriya Food Products Private Limited,
No.37, Siva Vishnu Complex, 2nd Floor,
Natesan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.
4. Mr.Ramamoorthy Sivasubramanian,
Director,
Jayapriya Food Products Private Limited,
No.37, Siva Vishnu Complex, 2nd Floor,
Natesan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.
5. Mr.Ramamoorthy Tamilselvan,
Director,
Jayapriya Food Products Private Limited,
No.37, Siva Vishnu Complex, 2nd Floor,
Natesan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017. ..Defendants
2/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.399 of 2020
(Comm.Suit)
Prayer:
Civil Suit has been filed under Order IV Rule 1 O.S.Rules r/w
Sections 27, 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, pleased to grant a
judgment and decree on the following terms:-
a) A perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their
distributors, stockiest, servants, agents, retailers, representatives or any
other person claiming under/through them from in any manner infringing
the plaintiffs' registered trademark 'ADHAVAN' and/or 'Mjtd;' by
manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, stocking, advertising, exporting,
importing either directly and/ or indirectly any goods and in particular any
food or allied products under the trademark 'AADHAVAN' either per-se or
in combination and/or any other mark either in English or Tamil or any
other language, which is identical with and/or deceptively similar to
plaintiffs' registered trademark “ADHAVAN” or 'Mjtd;' or in any other
manner whatsoever;
b) A perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their
distributors, stockiest, servants, agents, retailers, representatives or any
other person claiming under/through them from in any manner
manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, stocking, advertising, exporting,
importing, either directly and/or indirectly any goods and in particular any
food or allied products using the trademark 'AADHAVAN', either per se
or in combination and/or any other mark either in English or Tamil or any
other language which is identical with or deceptively similar to the
3/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.399 of 2020
(Comm.Suit)
plaintiffs' trademark 'ADHAVAN' or 'Mjtd;', so as to pass off the
defendants' products as and for the products of the plaintiffs or in any other
manner whatsoever connected with the plaintiffs;
c) A perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their
distributors, stockiest, servants, agents, retailers, representatives or any
other person claiming under them from in any manner using the trademark
'AADHAVAN', either per se or in combination and/or any other mark
either in English or Tamil or any other language which is identical with or
deceptively similar to the plaintiff trademark 'ADHAVAN' or 'Mjtd;' as an
ad-word or keyword or in respect of their website address or contents or
trading style or name of entity or social media handle or social media name
or in any other manner whatsoever;
d) The defendants be ordered to surrender to plaintiffs for
destruction all packed goods, labels, dyes, blocks, moulds, screen prints,
packing materials and other materials bearing the trademark
'AADHAVAN' either per se or in combination and/or any other mark
either in English or Tamil or any other language which is identical with or
deceptively similar to the plaintiff trademark 'ADHAVAN' or 'Mjtd;';
e) A preliminary decree be passed in favour of the plaintiffs
directing the defendants to render account of profits made by use of
trademark 'AADHAVAN' either per-se or in combination and/or any other
mark either in English or Tamil or any other language and a final decree be
passed in favour of the plaintiffs for the amount of profits thus found to
have been made by the defendants, after the latter have rendered accounts;
4/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.399 of 2020
(Comm.Suit)
f) The defendants be ordered and decreed to pay to the plaintiffs a
sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Only) as special
damages for acts of passing off and infringement of trademark committed
by them;
g) For costs of the suit;
For Plaintiffs : Mr.Madhan Babu
For Defendants : Mr.Ramesh Ganapathy
-----
JUDGMENT
The present suit was filed by the plaintiffs with the grievance that
the defendants are infringing the registered trademark of the plaintiffs and
accordingly, various reliefs were sought for against the defendants. The
first defendant is the company and defendants 2 to 5 are the directors of
the first defendant-Company.
2. During the pendency of the suit, the parties were able to arrive at
a settlement and the same was reduced to writing by way of a joint
memorandum of compromise submitted before this Court. The
memorandum of compromise has been signed by the plaintiffs and also by
the first defendant represented by its directors. The memorandum of
compromise has also been signed by the respective counsel. The learned
counsel for the defendants submitted that a resolution was passed by the
company and thereby, the memorandum of compromise signed by the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.399 of 2020
(Comm.Suit)
defendant was on behalf of the defendants 2 to 5 also.
3. A scanned reproduction of the joint memorandum of compromise
is as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.399 of 2020
(Comm.Suit)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.399 of 2020
(Comm.Suit)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.399 of 2020
(Comm.Suit)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.399 of 2020
(Comm.Suit)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.399 of 2020
(Comm.Suit)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.399 of 2020
(Comm.Suit)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.399 of 2020
(Comm.Suit)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.399 of 2020
(Comm.Suit)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.399 of 2020
(Comm.Suit)
4. In view of the above, the present suit is decreed in terms of
memorandum of compromise and the memorandum of compromise shall
form part of the decree.
5. Since the compromise has been arrived at by the parties even
before framing of issues, this Court is inclined to permit the plaintiffs for
refund of the entire Court fee paid by them. The learned counsel for the
plaintiffs fairly submitted that the Court fee that is refunded can be directly
sent to the State Legal Services Authority, High Court, Chennai. The
learned counsel for the plaintiffs shall file an appropriate memo and the
entire Court fee shall be refunded and it can be directly paid to the State
Legal Services Authority, High Court, Chennai. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected applications are closed.
31.01.2022
mk
Internet: Yes
Index : Yes/No
To
The Sub-Assistant Registrar,
Original Side, High Court,
Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.399 of 2020
(Comm.Suit)
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.
mk
Civil Suit No.399 of 2020
(Comm.Suit)
31.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
