Tuesday, 19, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

M/S.Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd vs Sree Sai Varsha Nutritions
2022 Latest Caselaw 10917 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 10917 Mad
Judgement Date : 23 June, 2022

Madras High Court
M/S.Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd vs Sree Sai Varsha Nutritions on 23 June, 2022
                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    Dated 23.06.2022

                                                        CORAM

                         The Hon'ble Mr. Justice SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY


                                                 Civil Suit No.8 of 2021
                                                     (Comm. Suits)

                M/s.Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.
                29, III Floor, SIDCO Garment Complex,
                Guindy, Chennai-600 032.                                   ...         Plaintiff

                                                         vs.
                1. Sree Sai Varsha Nutritions
                   Plot No.34, L.N.Colony,
                   UPPAL, Hyderabad-500 039
                   Rep. By its Proprietor,
                   K.Gangadhar Reddy

                2. Vyshnavi Pharma
                   2-4-81, Medical Complex,
                   Rajagiri Kota, narasaropet-522 601
                   Guntur District,
                   Rep. By its Partner, N.Ramalingeswara Rao

                3. Sri Vari Pharma,
                   120/43, Rasappa Chetty Street,
                   Parrys, Chennai-600 003.                                      ...   Defendants

                                  The suit is filed under Order VII Rule 1 CPC and Order IV Rule 1

                of O.S. Rules READ WITH Sections 27,28,29,134,135 of the Trade Marks

                Act, 1999 and Sections 51,55 & 62 of the Copyrights Act 1957 praying to

                _____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                Page No.1 of 7
                grant a judgment and decree (a) a permanent injunction restraining the

                Defendants, by itself, its partners, men, servants, agents, distributors,

                stockists, representatives or any one claiming through or under them from in

                any manner infringing the plaintiff's registered trademark ZINCOVIT under

                No.487453 in class 5 by using a deceptively similar trademark ZINKOWIT

                or any other trademark deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered

                trademark or in any other manner whatsoever; (b) a permanent injunction

                restraining the Defendants, by itself, its partners, men, servants, agents,

                distributors, stockists, representatives or any one claiming through or under

                them from in any manner committing acts of copyright infringement by

                using, in the course of trade, labels/artistic works which are a substantial

                reproduction of Plaintiffs' registered copyright under No.A-54243/1997 in

                colour scheme, get up and layout for their ZINKOWIT syrup, drops tablets

                etc., or in any other manner whatsoever; (c) a permanent injunction

                restraining the Defendants, by itself, its partners, men, servants, agents,

                distributors, stockists, representatives or any one claiming through or under

                them from in any manner committing acts of copyright infringement by

                using, in the course of trade, labels/artistic works which are a substantial

                reproduction of Plaintiffs' registered copyright under No.A-91339/2011 for


                _____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                Page No.2 of 7
                their ZINKOWIT syrup, drops etc., or in any other manner whatsoever; (d) a

                permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, by itself, its partners, men,

                servants, agents, distributors, stockists, representatives or any one claiming

                through or under them from in any manner passing off and/or enabling

                others to pass off the Defendants' products under the trademark ZINKOWIT

                as and for the plaintiffs' products by manufaturing, selling, or offering to sell,

                distributing, displaying, printing, stocking, using, advertising their products

                with a trademark and/or label or artistic work that is identical in colour

                scheme, get up and layout with that of the plaintiff's ZINCOVIT trademark

                or artistic work or in any other manner whatsoever: (e) the Defendants be

                ordered to surrender to Plaintiffs for destruction of all products, labels,

                cartons, dyes, blocks, moulds, screen prints, packing materials and other

                materials bearing the trademark ZINKOWIT label or any mark deceptively

                similar to plaintiffs' trademark and artistic work ZINCOVIT label; (f) a

                preliminary decree be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs directing the

                Defendants to render account of profits made by use of trademark and

                copyright in the artistic work ZINKOWIT label and a final decree be passed

                in favour of the Plaintiffs for the amount of profit thus found to have been




                _____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                Page No.3 of 7
                made by the Defendants after the latter have rendered accounts; and (g) for

                costs of the suit.


                                           For Plaintiff     : M/s.R.Sathish Kumar

                                            For Defendants    : M/s.S.Vijayaraghavan for D3
                                                                M/s.V.Sivakumar for D2

                                                      JUDGMENT

The suit was filed seeking relief in respect of alleged trademark

and copyright infringement and passing off. Subsequently, the plaintiff

settled the dispute with the third defendant. Since the first and second

defendants did not appear, they were set ex parte. Accordingly, the case was

posted for recording ex parte evidence. The plaintiff adduced evidence by

examining Mr.D.Jude F.L.S.Durai Pandian, the Chief Financial Officer of the

plaintiff, who was examined as PW1. In course of examination-in-chief of

PW1, seven documents were exhibited as Ex.P1 to P7. These documents

include the certified copy of the Trade Mark Registration Certificate bearing

No.487453 in class 5. It also includes the plaintiff's original carton, which

was exhibited as Exs.P5 and P6 and the defendant's carton which was

exhibited as Ex.P7. The plaintiff's registered trade mark is “ZINCOVIT”,

which is registered in class 5, and the impugned mark is “ZINKOWIT”.

_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2. On considering the evidence on record and, in particular, by

comparing Ex.P5 and Ex.P7, it is clear that the defendant's mark is near

identical to the plaintiff's mark. Consequently, the plaintiff is entitled to

succeed. Since the first and second defendants remained ex parte, the

accounts are not available for purpose of considering the relief claimed in

paragraph 28(f) or for payment of additional court fee in respect thereof.

Therefore, the relief claimed in paragraph 28(f) is rejected.

3. Hence, C.S.No.8 of 2014 is decreed in terms of the reliefs

prayed for in paragraph 28 (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the plaint. On the loser

pays principle, the first and second defendants shall pay costs assessed in a

sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the plaintiff. This shall include court fees, lawyer's

fees and other expenses.



                                                                                      23.06.2022

                Index     : Yes
                Internet : Yes
                kal

                Plaintiffs' witnesses:

                                  Mr.D.Jude F.L.S.Durai Pandian   -   PW1


                _____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Documents exhibited by the Plaintiff:

Sl.No Exhibi Date Particulars of Documents ts

1. Ex.P1 19.01.2018 The copy of Board Resolution dated 19.01.2018. (Original verified and returned)

2. Ex.P2 Certified copy of Trade mark Registration under No.487453 in class 5.

3. Ex.P3 12.11.2013 The original news report in the daily, Dinakaran, Puduchery edition.

4. Ex.P4 The copy of the letter by the 1st defendant along with the FIR filed in the Vikaravandi Police Station.

5. Ex.P5 The original Carton of the plaintiff

6. Ex.P6 The original Carton of the plaintif.

7. Ex.P7 The photo of the defendants Carton.

SKRJ

_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

kal

Civil Suit No.8 of 2014 (Comm. Suits)

23.06.2022

_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter