[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
M/S.Micro Labs Limited vs Mr.A.Santhosh on 27 February, 2026
Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
C.S(COMM DIV) No. 256 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.02.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
C.S(COMM DIV) No. 256 of 2025
and O.A.Nos.965 to 967 of 2025 and A.No.4857 of 2025
M/s.Micro Labs Limited
A company incorporated under
the Companies Act, 1956
represented by its Authorised Signatory
Mr.Ashok Kumar G,
having office at
No.31, Race Course Road,
Bengaluru – 560 001.
Karnataka.
..Plaintiff
Vs
Mr.A.Santhosh,
Proprietor,
M/s.Life Gain Pharma
Having Office at
No.34, New No.43, First Floor,
Ayya Maligai, Choolaimedu High Road,
Choolaimedu, Chennai – 600 094
Tamil Nadu.
..Defendant
Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of O.S. Rules read with Order VII
Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Sections 27, 28, 29, 134 and 135 of
the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Sections 51, 55 and 62 of the Copyright
Act, 1957 and Section 7 of The Commercial Courts Act praying to grant a
judgment and decree on the following terms:
__________
Page1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 06:14:31 pm )
C.S(COMM DIV) No. 256 of 2025
a) A permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, its
manufacturers, distributors, stockists, servants, agents, wholesalers,
retailers, legal representatives or any other person claiming under it from
in any manner manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, stocking,
advertising directly or indirectly dealing in medicinal and pharmaceutical
preparations Infringing the trademark AVAS of the Plaintiff registered
under No. 963813 in class 5 by use of deceptively similar trademark
AVASLIP or any mark identical or similar to Plaintiff’s registered
trademark AVAS in any manner whatsoever;
b) A permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, its
manufacturers, distributors, stockists, servants, agents, wholesalers,
retailers, legal representatives or any other person claiming under it from
in any manner manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, stocking,
advertising directly or indirectly dealing in medicinal and pharmaceutical
preparations under the trademark AVASLIP or any other trademark that is
identical to and /or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s trademark AVAS
and/or use similar packaging as that of the plaintiff’s products so as to
pass off their medicinal preparations as and for the medicinal preparations
of the Plaintiff in any manner whatsoever;
c) A permanent injunction restraining the Defendant by themselves,
their servants, agents, men, distributors or anyone claiming through them
from committing acts of copyright infringement by making substantial
__________
Page2 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 06:14:31 pm )
C.S(COMM DIV) No. 256 of 2025
reproduction of the Plaintiffs registered copyright in the artistic work
AVAS label by use of deceptively similar colour scheme, get up and layout
for their AVASLIP labels or in any manner whatsoever;
d) the Defendant be ordered to pay to the Plaintiff a sum of
Rs.50,00,000/- as liquidated damages for committing acts of infringement
against Plaintiff’s registered trademark so as to pass off its products as
and for the Plaintiff’s products;
e) The defendant be ordered and decreed to deliver up destruction
to the plaintiff all the products, preparations, packaging either filled or
empty, dyes, blocks, labels, brochures, leaflets, pamphlets, hand bills,
hoardings, wall posters, calendars, carry bags, stationery items and such
other sales promotional materials bearing and/or containing impugned
trademark AVASLIP;
f) A preliminary decree be passed in favour of the Plaintiff directing
the Defendant to render accounts of profits made by it by use of the
identical/deceptively similar trademark AVASLIP or any mark identical/
deceptively similar to the trademark of the Plaintiff AVAS and a final
decree be passed in favour of the Plaintiff for the amount of profits found
to have been made by the Defendant after the latter has rendered
accounts;
g) Directing the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff the costs to the
suit.
__________
Page3 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 06:14:31 pm )
C.S(COMM DIV) No. 256 of 2025
For Plaintiff : Ms.Shamilee Rajkumar
For Defendant : Mr.C.R.Malarvannan
for M/s.S.Bhuvaneshwari
JUDGMENT
An alternative mark was proposed by the defendant. The plaintiff
has no objection to the defendant using the said mark. The defendant has
also provided details of ready to sell inventory. The defendant seeks four
months for the liquidation thereof and the plaintiff has agreed thereto.
The defendant has also agreed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as costs,
which is acceptable to the plaintiff.
2. Since parties have settled the dispute in the manner above, the
suit is dismissed as settled out of Court. In terms thereof, the plaintiff is
entitled to refund of full court fee. Consequently, connected applications
are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
27.02.2026
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
mmi
__________
Page4 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 06:14:31 pm )
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
mmi
27.02.2026
__________
Page5 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 06:14:31 pm )
