[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Bibin John Trading As Melange Designing ... vs Lifestyle International Private ... on 8 April, 2026
Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
A.No.2893 of 2025
in C.S.(Comm.Div)No.2 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
A.No.2893 of 2025
in C.S.(Comm.Div)No.2 of 2024
Bibin John, Trading as Melange Designing Studio
Dwarai Swami Lane, MG Road, Ernakulam,
Kerala 682035. ... Applicant/Defendant
-vs-
Lifestyle International Private Limited,
Express Avenue, 49, 50L, Block No.9,
Triplicane Village, Whites Road,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600014,
Represented by its Authorized Signatory
Mr. A. Shyam Ravindhar ... Respondent/Plaintiff
Prayer: Application is filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side
Rules Read With Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908, to reject the plaint
filed in C.S. (Comm.Div)No.2 of 2024 as not maintainable in law.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.No.2893 of 2025
in C.S.(Comm.Div)No.2 of 2024
For Applicant : Mr.M.S.Bharath
For Respondent : Mr.Arun C.Mohan
ORDER
The plaintiff asserts that it has adopted and applied the mark
“MELANGE” to apparel. The action was instituted as a rolled-up action
for alleged infringement of trade mark and passing off by the defendant’s
use of a device mark containing the word element MELANGE. On the
ground that the branch office of the plaintiff is situated within the
jurisdiction of this Court, the plaintiff instituted the suit without obtaining
leave by resorting to Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The
plaint was accompanied by an application for leave to combine causes of
action. Such application was allowed.
2. After filing the written statement, the defendant has applied for
rejection of plaint. Learned counsel for the defendant contends that the suit
was wrongly framed as a composite suit. Adverting to paragraph 15 of the
plaint, learned counsel points out that the plaintiff was aware that Trade
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
in C.S.(Comm.Div)No.2 of 2024
Mark No.3587424 was registered in Class 40 with effect from 08.07.2017.
Therefore, learned counsel contends that the framing of the suit as a
composite suit was a ruse to circumvent the requirement of obtaining leave
to sue. He also contends that the failure to obtain leave to sue is a
non-curable defect.
3. Relying on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay
High Court in Harman Overseas and others v. Dongguan Tr Bearing
Company Limited, 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 7327, learned counsel contends
that the jurisdictional plea may be raised notwithstanding the application for
joinder of causes of action being allowed.
4. After pointing out that the plaintiff chose not to appeal against the
refusal of interim relief in relation to infringement, learned counsel
contends that the only remaining remedy is in relation to passing off.
Referring to the plaint documents, he contends that said documents do not
establish cause of action for passing off within the jurisdiction of this Court.
He also adds that the failure to obtain leave, where required, leads to the
inference that the action is prohibited by law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
in C.S.(Comm.Div)No.2 of 2024
5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff refutes these contentions. He relies
on the fact that the application to combine causes of action was allowed. He
also asserts that no case is made out to reject the plaint on any of the
grounds specified in Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908
(the CPC).
6. A plaint may be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 if the plaint does
not disclose a cause of action or if it appears from a statement in the plaint
that the suit is barred by any law. On the ground that leave to sue was not
obtained by the plaintiff, it cannot be said that the suit is barred by any law.
Clause (d) of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC comes into operation when
filing of the civil suit in respect of a specific subject is barred under an
applicable statute. Such is not the case here. As regards non-disclosure of
cause of action, the matter should be considered by assuming that the
averments in the plaint are true. The test to be applied is whether such
averments disclose a cause of action and not whether the plaintiff is in a
position to establish all elements of such cause of action so as to succeed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
in C.S.(Comm.Div)No.2 of 2024
7. In the plaint, at paragraph 21 thereof, the plaintiff has asserted that
the continuous use of the impugned mark by the defendant constitutes
infringement and passing off. At paragraph 22, the plaintiff has averred that
it has a branch office in Chennai within the jurisdiction of this Court. It is
also averred that the defendant’s products are available at Chennai through
online websites. This is sufficient to conclude that the plaint does disclose a
cause of action.
8. For reasons aforesaid, this application is dismissed without any
order as to costs.
08.04.2026
Index : Yes/No (1/3)
Internet:Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
kj
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
in C.S.(Comm.Div)No.2 of 2024
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J
kj
in C.S.(Comm.Div)No.2 of 2024
08.04.2026
(1/3)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
