Yara International Asa vs Sasra Fertilisers Pvt. Ltd
2022 Latest Caselaw 5620 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 5620 Mad
Judgement Date : 21 March, 2022

Madras High Court

Yara International Asa vs Sasra Fertilisers Pvt. Ltd on 21 March, 2022

                                                                           C.R.P.(PD) No.552 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED : 21.03.2022

                                        CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

                                              C.R.P.(PD) No.552 of 2022
                                              and CMP No.2932 of 2022


                     Yara International ASA
                     P.O. Box 343Skpyen
                     N-0213 Oslo,Norway
                     Represented by its Power of Attorney
                     Ritam Rawal, working for gain at
                     Millennium Plaza, Sector 27
                     Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 009.
                     Vide Power of Attorney dated February 1, 2021
                                                          ... Plaintiff / Petitioner / Petitioner

                                                         Vs.

                     1.Sasra Fertilisers Pvt. Ltd.,
                       Flat No.A-110
                       Kochar Arjun Garden
                       Thorapakkam Road
                       Gerugambakkam, Chennai
                       Tamil Nadu – 600 128.

                     2.Global Century Seeds and Agro Chemicals Centre
                       No.34, Prabu Complex
                       Nachiappa Street, Akilmedu
                       Main Road, Erode
                       Tamil Nadu – 638 001.
                       Also at : Palayapalayam
                       Near MLA Office, Perundurai Road
                       Erode, Tamil Nadu – 638 001.
                                             ... Respondents / Respondents / Defendants

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     1/7
                                                                           C.R.P.(PD) No.552 of 2022


                     Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
                     of India, praying to pass an order setting aside the impugned order dated
                     07.10.2021 denying/refusing interim protection to the petitioner in
                     I.A.No.321/2021 in O.S.No.179 of 2020, pending on the file of the District
                     Court No.II at Kanchipuram, as being manifestly erroneous, arbitrary,
                     illegal and unjust and consequently quash the same.

                                  For Petitioner     :      Mr.S.Parthasarathy
                                                            Senior Counsel

                                                         ORDER

The revision petitioner is the plaintiff, and he has challenged the order of

the learned District Judge, Court No.II, Kancheepuram in I.A.No.321/2021

in O.S.No.179 of 2020, dated 07.10.2021 , refusing to grant an order of

interim injunction against the defendants on an allegation of violation of its

trade mark. The suit is laid for trade mark and passing off.

2. Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision

petitioner submitted that the owner of the trade mark has a property in it,

and its violation affects its commercial existence, and the trial Court ought

to have granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using

the trade mark. He submitted the plaintiff's trade mark is 'YARA' written

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

C.R.P.(PD) No.552 of 2022

above a boat-like design. The defendants trade name goes by the name

'SASRA' in its packing material, but at the bottom, it says 'Imported &

Packed by YARA FERTILISERS PVT.LTD.'. He added that both the

plaintiff and the defendants are dealing in the same product - 'fertilizers'.

3. The learned counsel added that he has taken out an application for

appointing a Commissioner and seizing the packing material used by the

defendants with and without the content that carries the trade mark of the

plaintiff. These applications are not even numbered till date. He however

made a fair statement that though the trial Court has ordered

notice to the defendants, the notice is only being taken. The learned

counsel relied on the judgment in Messrs.H.Bevis and Company Vs. Ram

Behari & others [1953 1 ALL 351] and Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc.,

Vs. B.Vijaya Sai and others [2022 Livelaw (SC) 65].

4. There is substantial merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for

the petitioner. The trade mark is not just an aspect of intellectual propriety

but is a kind of property that generates goodwill to create a brand identity

which is critical for the market-survival and in sustaining it. Therefore, if

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

C.R.P.(PD) No.552 of 2022

trade marks are not adequately protected then it may be detrimental to the

commercial interest of the owner of the trade mark. The learned trial

Judge ought to inform himself about the significance of trade mark and its

violation

5.1 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd., Vs.

Sudhir Bhatia [(2004) 3 SC 90], has held as under :

5. The law on the subject is well settled. In cases of infringement either of trade mark or of copyright, normally an injunction must follow. Mere delay in bringing action is not sufficient to defeat grant of injunction in such cases. The grant of injunction also becomes necessary if it prima facie appears that the adoption of the mark was itself dishonest.

5.2 Having said thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bajaj Auto Limited

Vs. TVS Motor Company Limited [(2009) 9 SCC 797] has extracted its

earlier judgment in Shree Vardhman Rice & General Mills v. Amar Singh

Chawalwala [(2009) 10 SCC 257], which reads as under :

4. Recently, we have held in Shree Vardhman Rice & General Mills v. Amar Singh Chawalwala [(2009) 10 SCC 257] as follows :

“ ..... Without going into the merits of the controversy, we are of the opinion that the matters relating to trade

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

C.R.P.(PD) No.552 of 2022

marks, copyrights and patents should be finally decided very expeditiously by the trial Court instead of merely granting or refusing to grant injunction. Experience shows that in the matters of trade marks, copyrights and patents, litigation is mainly fought between the parties about the temporary injunction and that goes on for years and years and the result is that the suit is hardly decided finally. This is not proper.

Proviso (a) to Order 17 Rule 1(2) CPC states that when the hearing of the suit has commenced, it shall be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the court finds that, for exceptional reasons to be recorded by it the adjournment of the hearing beyond the following day is necessary. The court should also observe clauses (b) to (e) of the said proviso.

In our opinion, in matters relating to trade marks, copyright and patents the proviso to Order 17 Rule 1(2) CPC should be strictly complied with by all the courts, and the hearing of the suit in such matters should proceed on day-to-day basis and the final judgment should be given normally within four months from the date of the filing of the suit.”

6. It is important that the learned trial Judge should sensitise himself on the

salient aspects of working of trade marks, and its administration by the

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

C.R.P.(PD) No.552 of 2022

Court. However, turning to the merit of the present revision, since the

learned trial Judge is yet to decide on the merit of plaintiff's case, it may not

be appropriate to interfere with his decision to order notice.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the matter

comes before the trial Court on 25.03.2022. The revision petitioner may

now approach the trial Court for appropriate remedies in the matter, and the

trial Court is required to dispose of I.A.No.321 of 2021 in O.S.No.179 of

2020, at the very earliest and at any rate not later than one month.