Madras High Court
M/S.Madras City Properties.Com ... vs M/S.City Club India Pvt. Ltd on 8 June, 2022
C.S..No.485 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR
RAMAMOORTHY
C.S.No.485 of 2012
1.M/s.Madras City Properties.com Private Limited
Represented by its Managing Director Mr.Jayachandran
No.16, Ground Floor,
1st Street, Poes Road,
Teynampet,
Chennai - 600 018.
2.Mr.V.Jayachandran, Proprietor
M/s.Chennai City Property.com
S/o.P.Venkatesalu,
No.16, Ground Floor,
1st Street, Poes Road,
Teynampet,
Chennai - 600 018.
3.Mrs.J.Balica,
W/o.V.Jayachandran
No.5, 1st Floor,
1st Street, Poes Road,
Teynampet,
Chennai - 600 018. ... Plaintiffs
vs.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S..No.485 of 2012
1.M/s.City Club India Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its
Managing Director Mr.K.Rajendran
No.16, 1st Lane,
Vijayaragava Road,
T.Nagar,
Chennai - 600 017.
2.M/s.Chennai City Property.com
Constitution not known
No.34, G-1, Living Spring Apartment,
Circular Road,
United India Colony,
Kodambakkam,
Chennai - 600 024. ... Defendants
PRAYER: Plaint filed under Sections 134 and 135 of the Indian
Trademark Act, 1999 Read With Order IV Rule 1 Original Side Rules and
Order VII Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 prayed for Judgment and
Decree:-
(a) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, its men,
agents, servants or persons acting on its behalf or through or under them
from infringing or enabling others to passing off the plaintiff's trademarks
"MADRASCITYPROPERTIES.COM" and
"CHENNAICITYPROPERTIES.COM" or its variants or any other marks
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S..No.485 of 2012
similar or deceptively similar to that of the plaintiffs trade mark by
including them jointly or severally as adwords, keywords for internet search
or meta tag in any manner, whatsoever, in its business;
(b) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, its men,
agents, servants or persons acting on its behalf or through or under them
from sing the trademark 'CHENNAICITYPROPERTY' or its variants or any
other mark similar or deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff by including
them jointly or severally as adwords, keywords for internet search or meta
tag in any manner whatsoever, in its business and thereby passing off the
business and services as that of the plaintiffs;
(c) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, its men,
agents, servants or persons acting on its behalf from using the domain name
'www.chennaicityproperties.co.in' or www.madrascityproperties.com and /
or any other domain name similar deceptively similar to that the plaintiffs'
domain names namely www.madrascityproperties.com and
www.chennaicityproperties.com in the defendants advertising or promotion
3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S..No.485 of 2012
or business brochures or pamphlets and thereby passing off the business or
services as that of the Applicant's in any manner whatsoever;
(d) Directing the Defendants to pay the sum of Rs.25,00,000/-
towards damages for the acts of passing off committed by the Defendants;
(e) A preliminary decree be passed in favour of the plaintiffs directing
the defendants to render a true and proper account of their respective total
sales turnover achieved using the mark of the plaintiff, from the date on
which each of the defendants started carrying out business using the name
deceptively similar to that of the plaintiffs trademarks
"MADRASCITYPROPERTIES.COM" and
"CHENNAICITYPROPERTIES.COM" on defendants' products and a final
decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff awarding 3% of such sales
turnover ascertained on accounting, towards Royalty;
(f) Directing the Defendants to pay costs of the suit.
4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S..No.485 of 2012
For Plaintiffs : No Appearance
For Defendants : No Appearance
**********
JUDGMENT
At the hearing on 06.04.2022, a memo was filed by the learned
counsel for the plaintiffs to the effect that the counsel had no instructions
from the plaintiffs. Therefore, the Registry was directed to print the names
of the plaintiffs in the cause list instead of the names of the counsel. Inspite
of printing the names of the plaintiffs in the cause list, there was no
appearance for the plaintiffs on 20.04.2022. The matter was adjourned until
today so as to provide a final opportunity to the plaintiffs. Once again, there
is no representation for the plaintiffs today.
2. Therefore, C.S.No.485 of 2012 is dismissed for non-prosecution.
There will be no order as to costs.
08.06.2022
rna
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S..No.485 of 2012
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J
rna
C.S.No.485 of 2012
08.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
