M/S.Haritha Automation Private Ltd., v. Mr.Mahaveer D Patil,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 22.09.2022 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and O.A.Nos.411 & 412 of 2022 & A.Nos.2863 & 2864 of 2022 M/s.Haritha Automation Private Ltd., No.10, Gowda Mutt Road Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014 Rep. by its Director Mr.Anandh Jain ... Plaintiff vs.
Mr.Mahaveer D Patil Proprietor M/s.Tushar Enterprises Gala No.3, 37, Digamber Jain Boarding Mahavir Nagar, Sangli Maharashtra 416 416 ... Defendant Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of O.S.Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 CPC Sections 27,28,29, 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 7 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of the High Courts Act, No.4 of 2016 to grant judgment and decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, themselves, its proprietor/directors/partners and other unknown persons as the case may be, successors-in-business, servants, agents, distributors, dealers, stockists, shop keepers, wholesalers, retailers, representatives, assigns and all other persons Page No.1/11
claiming through or under them from infringing the registered trademark MAXSELL of the Plaintiff by manufacturing selling and/or distributing money counting machines, UV Detectors, Electronic Safety, Lockers, Electronic Weighing sale and various other products under an almost identical mark MAXVELL with similar colour scheme or any other similar or identical mark and in any other manner whatsoever; permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, themselves, its proprietor/directors/partners and other unknown persons as the case may be, successors-in-business, servants, agents, distributors, dealers, stockists, shop keepers, wholesalers, retailers, representatives, assigns and all other persons claiming through or under them from manufacturing selling, offering for sale and/or distributing money counting machines, UV Detectors, Electronic Safety, Lockers, Electronic Weighing sale and various other products which would amount to passing of their products as and for the plaintiff's products by using a deceptively similar mark MAXVELL with similar colour scheme, or any other similar or identical mark and in any other manner whatsoever; the defendant be ordered to surrender to the plaintiff for destruction of all lables, cartons, containers, packaging materials, blocks, dyes, prints, screen prints, notices, pamphlets, advertisements, hoardings and other promotional materials bearing the mark MAXVELL which is identical to the plaintiff's registered trademark MAXVELL; pass a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendants for rendition of their accounts of sales and profits of the impugned goods sold by the defendants under the impugned mark MAXVELL and a final decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff for the amount of profit found Page No.
to have been made by the Defendants after such accounts are rendered; the defendant be ordered and decreed to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as punitive and compensatory damages for committing acts of infringement of trademark and passing off of MAXVELL and to pay costs of the proceedings.
For Plaintiff : Mr.H.Siddarth For Defendant : Mr.Siddarth Govind
O R D E R
In the captioned matter, Mr.H.Siddarth, learned counsel for sole plaintiff-company and Mr.Siddarth Govind, learned counsel for lone defendant are before this Court.
2. Both the aforementioned learned counsel submit that the plaintiff and defendant have settled the captioned main suit out of Court and have reduced the terms of settlement qua a 'Joint Memo of Compromise dated 15.09.2022' [hereinafter 'said MOC' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. Both learned counsel have jointly placed before this Commercial Division said MOC and a scanned reproduction of the same together with docket is as follows:
Page No.3/11
Page No.4/11
Page No.5/11
Page No.6/11
Page No.7/11
Page No.8/11
Page No.9/11
3. Both learned counsel, on instructions, submit that the parties would abide by the terms of the aforesaid MOC and request for the captioned suit to be decreed in terms of said MOC. Both learned counsel submit that the parties, who have signed said MOC, have the authority to do so.
4. To be noted, plaintiff is a Company and the defendant is a proprietary concern. This Court is informed that Proprietor Mr.Mahaveer D.Patil has signed the said MOC. Both the learned counsel request for dispensing with the presence of the parties for recording said MOC.
5. Considering the nature of the matter and contents of said MOC, the request is acceded to.
Captioned suit is decreed in terms of said MOC, which shall form part of judgment and decree. Consequently, all captioned applications are disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs. 22.09.2022 gpa Page No.10/11
M.SUNDAR.J., gpa 22.09.2022 Page No.11/11