Madras High Court
N.Ranga Rao & Sons Private Ltd vs Mahendra T.Thakkar on 29 November, 2023
Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
(T)OP(CR)/1/2023
(ORA/1/2021/CR/SZ)
and C.S.No.294 of 2018
and A.Nos.534, 535 of 2021
(T)OP(CR)/1/2023:
N.Ranga Rao & Sons Private Ltd.,
PB No.52, Vani Vilas Road,
Mysore 570 004. ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.Mahendra T.Thakkar,
trading as Prakash Trading Co.,
Pillaiyar Kulam, Inamkarisalkulam P.O.,
Srivilliputhur 626 125,
Tamil Nadu.
2.The Registrar of Copyrights,
Copyright Office,
New Delhi. ... Respondents
C.S.No.294 of 2018:
N.Ranga Rao & Sons Private Ltd.,
PB No.52, Vani Vilas Road,
Mysore 570 004
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and whose branch office is at
T.S.109, Block No.3, Poomagal, 5th Street, Ekkaduthangal,
Chennai - 600 097. ... Plaintiff
-vs-
1.Mahendra T.Thakkar,
trading as Prakash Trading Co.,
Pillaiyar Kulam, Inamkarisalkulam P.O.,
Srivilliputhur 626 125
and also at
Jalaram Parkchali, No.1, Jaska Road,
Harij - 384 240, Gujarat.
2.Tribhuvandas V.Thakkar,
trading as Prakash Kumar Tribhuvandas,
Jalaram Parkchali, No.1, Jaska Road,
Harij - 384 240, Gujarat. ... Defendants
PRAYER in (T)OP(CR)/1/2023: Transfer Original Petition
(Copyrights) filed under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957,
praying to cancel / rectify / expunge the registration granted to the
respondent under no.A-120755/2017 dated 29.09.2017 for the alleged
artistic work titled as "Cycle" in order to maintain purity in the
register, with costs and thus render justice.
2/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PRAYER in C.S.No.294 of 2018: Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule
1 of O.S.Rules Read With Order VII Rule 1 of CPC along with
Sections 27, 28, 29, 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and
Sections 51 and 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957, prays for a judgment
and decree:
(a) Granting permanent injunction restraining the Defendants
by themselves, their servant, agents or any one claiming through
them from in any manner infringing the Plaintiff's registered Trade
Mark CYCLE by using the identical and offending Trade Mark
CYCLE and / or the device of the cycle or any other mark or marks
which are in anyway identical, deceptively similar to or a colorable
imitation of the Plaintiff's registered Trade Mark CYCLE WITH THE
DEVICE OF CYCLE, either by manufacturing or selling or offering
for sale or in any manner advertising the same;
(b) Granting a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants
by themselves, their servant, agents or any one claiming through
3/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
them from in any manner infringing the Plaintiff's Copyright in the
artistic work CYCLE BRAND logo, along with the unique and
distinctive colour scheme, more fully specified contained in
SCHEDULE A to the plaint, by use of identical logo that has an
overall similarity to and is a colourable imitation of the plaintiff's
CYCLE BRAND logo, either by manufacturing or selling or offering
for sale or in any manner advertising the same;
(c) Granting a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants
by themselves, their servant, agents or any one claiming through
them from in any manner passing off its products, under the
offending Trade Mark CYCLE and / or the device of the cycle as and
for the Plaintiff's products manufactured and marketed under the
Mark CYCLE with the device of cycle in any manner whatsoever;
(d) Directing the Defendants to render a true and faithful
account of the profits earned by the Defendants through the sale of
its products, including the products bearing the offending Trade
Mark CYCLE and / or the device of the cycle and direct payment of
4/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
such profits to the Plaintiff for the acts of infringement and passing
off committed by the Defendants;
(e) Directing the Defendants to surrender to the Plaintiff the
entire stock of unused offending labels bearing the offending Trade
Mark CYCLE and / or the device of the cycle along with the blocks
and dyes for destruction.
(f) Directing the Defendants to pay to the Plaintiff the cost of
the suit.
For Petitioner : Ms.Antara Balaji
in (T)OP(CR)/1/2023 for M/s.Factum Law
For Respondent 1 : Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan
in (T)OP(CR)/1/2023
For Respondent 2 : Mr.K.Subbu Ranga Bharathi, CGSC
in (T)OP(CR)/1/2023
For Plaintiff : Ms.Antara Balaji
in C.S.No.294 of 2018 for Mr.Rajesh Ramanathan
For Defendants : Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan
in C.S.No.294 of 2018
**********
5/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
COMMON ORDER
The contesting parties to the suit and rectification petition
executed a Memorandum of Compromise dated 04.09.2023. The said
document has been executed by the authorized signatory of the
plaintiff and the proprietor of the respective defendants. Learned
counsel for the respective parties have also signed the document.
2. In paragraph 3 of the Memorandum of Compromise, the
parties agreed that the defendants shall forthwith cease to use,
market or promote the mark "CYCLE" or the device of "CYCLE"
either directly or indirectly. It was further agreed that the defendants
shall within seven days from the date of execution of the
Memorandum of Compromise, withdraw Trade Mark Application
No.1386815 in Class 34 and copyright registration No.A-
120755/2017. In compliance with these obligations, learned counsel
for the defendants submits that applications were filed before the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Trade Marks Registry and Copyright office, respectively. The
defendants also agreed to bind themselves by a decree of permanent
injunction in terms of prayers contained in paragraphs 30(a), 30(b)
and 30(c) of the plaint in C.S.No.294 of 2018. Subject to fulfillment of
the above obligations, the plaintiff agreed to relinquish the relief
claimed in paragraphs 30(d), 30(e) and 30(f) of the plaint in
C.S.No.294 of 2018. I see no legal impediment to the issuance of a
decree in terms of the compromise.
3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also points out that goods
bearing the impugned mark were seized by an Advocate
Commissioner and handed over to the plaintiff. He seeks permission
to destroy the goods in view of the perishable nature thereof. By
taking into account the fact that the defendants agreed not to use the
mark "CYCLE" on their products, the request of the plaintiff is
acceded to and the plaintiff is permitted to destroy the goods bearing
the mark, which are in its custody.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. Therefore, C.S.No294 of 2018 is decreed in terms of the
Memorandum of Compromise dated 04.09.2023, which shall form an
integral part of such decree. In the circumstances, there will be no
order as to costs. Consequently, A.Nos.534, 535 of 2021 are closed.
In view of the compromise recorded in the suit, (T)OP(CR)/1/2023
stands dismissed without any order as to costs.
29.11.2023
rna
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J
rna
(T)OP(CR)/1/2023
(ORA/1/2021/CR/SZ)
and A.Nos.534, 535 of 2021
29.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
