Madras High Court
M/S.Thalappakatti Naidu Anandha ... vs Youtube on 13 October, 2022
C.S(Comm. Div.)No.150 of 2022
and O.A.Nos.440 to 443 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 13.10.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
C.S(Comm. Div.)No.150 of 2022
and
O.A.Nos.440 to 443 of 2022
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Anandha Vilas Biriyani Hotel,
Represented by its authorized signatory,
V.Kamesh,
Having its branch office at Flat No.B3,
New No.17, Old No.18A, 11th Street,
Nandanam Extension, Chennai-600 035.
... Plaintiff
Vs.
1. Youtube,
Google LLC,
Unit No.26, The Executive Center,
Level 8, DLF Centre, Sanad Marg,
Connaught Place, New Delhi.
2. Facebook Inc,
One BKC Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051.
3. Mrs.Faiza
... Defendants
This Civil Suit is preferred under Order VII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure
Code, 1908 read with Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules 1956 and
Sections 134 & 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 praying
Page Nos.1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(Comm. Div.)No.150 of 2022
and O.A.Nos.440 to 443 of 2022
(a) granting a permanent injunction restraining the Third Defendant,
their men, servants, agents or anyone claiming through or under them from in
any manner Infringing the Plaintiff's trade mark and trading style
"Thalappakatti Biriyani Hotel" by continuing and uploading the Impugned
Video using any URL on the YouTube platform or through any other social
media platform for defaming the Plaintiff's restaurant named
"THALAPPAKATTI" and direct the Third Defendant to take down or
remove the Impugned Video.
(b) Grant an order of permanent injunction restraining the First
Defendant his employees, representatives, agents and all other persons
claiming under him or acting in concert with him or on his behalf or acting
on his instructions from continuing or uploading the impugned video and to
take down/remove and / or block/ restrict access to the Impugned Video from
the URL https://youtu.be/IZ5L8HsGRW0 or any other URL on the YouTube
platform defaming the Plaintiff's restaurant named "THALAPPAKATTI".
(c) Grant an order of permanent injunction restraining the Second
Defendant his employees, representation, agents and all other persons
claiming under him or acting in concert with him or on his behalf or acting
on his instructions from continuing or uploading the impugned video and to
take down/remove and / or block/ restrict access to the Impugned Video from
the URL https://fb.watch/dI6xucDW6I/ or any other URL on the Facebook
page defaming the Plaintiff's restaurant named "THALAPPAKATTI".
(d) Grant an order of permanent injunction restraining the Third
Defendant and their men and agents or any other persons claiming through
Page Nos.2/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(Comm. Div.)No.150 of 2022
and O.A.Nos.440 to 443 of 2022
them, from in any manner, continuing or uploading the impugned video and
uploading any further defamatory videos, articles, statements, photos or
caricatures insinuating the reputation of the Plaintiff's restaurant named
"THALAPPAKATTI" and in any manner by holding any press meet,
releasing or distributing any statement to the Print and Electronic Media any
messages, videos, in Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, WhatsApp and other
websites and all other forms of online videos/messages.
(e) The Third Defendant be ordered to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-
towards damages for defaming the Plaintiff's restaurant named
"THALAPPAKATTI".
(f) for costs of the suit;
For Plaintiff : Mr.Vijayan Subramanian
For Defendants : Mr.G.Balasubramanian for D1
Mr.Allwin Godwin
along with Ms.Akhila. J for D2
Mr.Rishab R.Jain for D3
*****
JUDGMENT
In the captioned matter, Mr.Vijayan Subramanian, learned counsel for
sole plaintiff, Mr.G.Balasubramanian, learned counsel for first defendant,
learned counsel Mr.Allwin Godwin along with Ms.Akhila J for second
defendant and Mr.Rishab.R.Jain, learned counsel for third defendant are
before this Commercial Division.
Page Nos.3/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(Comm. Div.)No.150 of 2022
and O.A.Nos.440 to 443 of 2022
2. Learned counsel for plaintiff submits that he has instructions from
plaintiff to withdraw the captioned suit as settled out of Court. Learned
counsel has also made an endorsement in the case file.
3. Learned counsel requests for refund of Court fee. Request acceded
to by applying Section 69-A of 'Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation
Act, 1955 [Act No. XIV of 1955]' (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'Tamil
Nadu Court Fees Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity). Learned
counsel on record for plaintiff submits that he will comply with necessary
formalities for refund of Court fee. Registry to process the same and ensure
that refund of Court fee as expeditiously as the business of the Registry
would permit and in any event within six(6) weeks from today i.e., by
24.11.2022. Though obvious it is made clear that the refund shall be subject
to standard statutory deductions if any and the refund shall be by way of an
instrument drawn in favour of the plaintiff.
4. Captioned Civil Suit is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently,
captioned applications are dismissed as withdrawn. There shall be no order
as to costs.
13.10.2022
kmi
Page Nos.4/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(Comm. Div.)No.150 of 2022
and O.A.Nos.440 to 443 of 2022
M.SUNDAR, J.
kmi
C.S(Comm. Div.)No.150 of 2022
and
O.A.Nos.440 to 443 of 2022
13.10.2022
Page Nos.5/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
