M/S Vasanta Bhavan Hotels India Private Limited v. Minjur Vasantha Bhavan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 23.11.2022

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and O.A.Nos.524 & 525 of 2022 in M/s.Vasanta Bhavan Hotels India Private Limited Represented by its Director Mr.Anand Krishnan Having its office at No.34, Developed Plots (South Phase) Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.

.. Plaintiff Vs.

Minjur Vasantha Bhavan No.135, TH Road, Minjur Tamil Nadu - 601 203.

.. Defendant This Civil Suit is preferred, under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC read with Order IV Rule 1 of High Court O.S. Rules and Sections 134 and 135 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, praying (a) Granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their men, servants, agents or anyone claiming through or under them from in any manner infringing the plaintiff Trade Mark and Trading Style "VASANTA BHAVAN" by using the offending Trade Mark and Trading Style "MINJUR VASANTHA BHAVAN" or any other mark or marks Page Nos.1/12

which are similar or in any way deceptively similar to or a colourable imitation of the plaintiff's Trade Mark "VASANTA BHAVAN"; (b) Granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their men, servants, agents or anyone claiming through or under them from in any manner Passing-off the plaintiff Trade Mark and Trading Style "VASANTA BHAVAN" by using the offending Trade Mark and Trading Style "MINJUR VASANTHA BHAVAN" or any other mark or marks which are similar or in any way deceptively similar to or a colourable imitation of the plaintiff's Trade Mark "VASANTA BHAVAN"; (c) Directing the defendant to render a true and faithful account of the profits earned by them through the sale of food products bearing the offending trade mark "MINJUR VASANTHA BHAVAN" and directing payment of such profits to the plaintiff by way of damages for infringement committed by the defendant;

(d) Directing the defendant to surrender to plaintiff the entire stock of unused offending goods with Trade Mark "MINJUR VASANTHA BHAVAN" with name boards, labels, wrappers, boxes, covers, bags, packets, cartons, bills, advertisements, materials, reports, envelops, brochures, printing blocks etc., bearing the offending Trademark for destruction;

(e) Directing to the defendant to pay the plaintiff the costs of the suit and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; For Plaintiff :

Ms.Preetha Natarajan For Defendant :

Mr.K.Livingston Page Nos.2/12

along with Mr.D.Premkumar M/s.Samanta and Ston (Law Firm)

J U D G M E N T

This judgment / common order which is a product of compromise will now dispose of the captioned main suit and captioned two applications thereat.

2. Captioned matter is listed today under the cause list caption 'FOR REPORTING SETTLEMENT'.

3. Ms.Preetha Natarajan, learned counsel on record for sole plaintiff company and Mr.K.Livingston along with Mr.D.Premkumar, learned counsel of M/s.Samanta and Ston (Law Firm) for lone defendant are before this Commercial Division.

4. Both learned counsel submit in one voice that parties i.e., plaintiff company and defendant have settled the lis by way of a compromise and both parties have reduced to writing the terms of compromise by way of a compromise memo styled / captioned 'JOINT COMPROMISE MEMO FILED BY THE PARTIES' and dated 21.11.2022 [hereinafter 'said JMOC' denoting 'Joint Memo of Compromise' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. To be noted, said JMOC consists of three annexures namely, Annexure A, Annexure B and Page Nos.3/12

Annexure C.

5. A scanned reproduction of the aforementioned said JMOC together with three annexures and docket are as follows: Page Nos.4/12

Page Nos.5/12

Page Nos.6/12

Page Nos.7/12

Page Nos.8/12

Page Nos.9/12

6. Adverting to the concluding paragraph in said JMOC, aforementioned counsel on both sides request in unison in one voice that the captioned main suit may please be disposed of by way of a compromise decree in terms of said JMOC.

7. As regards presence of parties for recording said JMOC, both learned counsel make a request for dispensing with the presence of respective parties and make the following submissions in support of their request :

(a) There is personal inconvenience for the director of plaintiff company and Ms.A.Anitha Mary, who is carrying on business in the name and style of 'MINJUR BHAVAN' (now) as sole proprietrix;

(b) Learned counsel for the plaintiff points out that Mr.Anand Krishnan (Son of Mr.M.Ravi) one of the directors in the plaintiff company who has verified and signed the plaint has signed said JMOC also. Likewise, learned counsel for defendant submits that Ms.Anitha Mary who has signed vakalatnama for Page Nos.10/12

defendant's counsel has signed said JMOC;

(c) It is submitted that both sides have signed said JMOC in the presence of each other;

(d) Said JMOC has been duly signed by counsel on record for plaintiff and counsel on record for defendant;

8. Considering the facts and circumstances, the trajectory the matter has taken and terms of said JMOC, request for dispensing with presence of parties is acceded to in this case. Before recording said JMOC and making the compromise decree, it is deemed appropriate to record that both learned counsel submit in one voice that in paragraph No.5 of the aforementioned said JMOC there is a mention about 'Annexure B' only whereas it should read as 'Annexures B and C'. This common submission made by learned counsel on both sides is duly recorded. This recording shall be read as part of said JMOC which shall now form part of the judgment.

Page Nos.11/12

M.SUNDAR, J.

mk

9. In the light of the narrative thus far, captioned main suit is disposed of in terms of said JMOC which shall form part of the judgment and decree. Consequently, captioned two applications are disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs. 23.11.2022 Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order mk and O.A.Nos.524 & 525 of 2022 in Page Nos.12/12