Krishnan Ramasamy
26 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
26 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
R.Subbulakshmi (Deceased) & others v.1/183 & others
This case involved complex disputes among the partners and legal heirs of a newspaper publishing firm, Dinamalar. The core issue revolved around the status and ownership of the firm's trademark following its dissolution. The Madras High Court addressed several related civil suits and original applications concerning partnership rights and intellectual property.
M/s.Taranga Technologies v.M/s.Neels Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
The appeal was filed against an order dismissing an application seeking to revoke leave granted in a suit for infringement of registered design and passing off. The core dispute revolved around whether the appellant's involvement in a national tender, which included supply within Chennai jurisdiction, provided sufficient grounds for the court to exercise territorial jurisdiction.
Ashok Leyland Limited v.Captain Tractors Private Limited
Ashok Leyland Limited filed a suit alleging that Captain Tractors Private Limited was using the mark 'CAPTAIN' to pass off its goods. The dispute centered on whether the use of the mark constituted passing off, given that Ashok Leyland manufactures heavy vehicles while the respondent holds a registration for mini tractors.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Sree Annapoorna Foods
Hindustan Unilever Limited appealed an order that allowed Sree Annapoorna Foods to amend its plaint to include a claim for rendition of accounts. The appellant argued that this amendment changed the nature of the suit and was contrary to Section 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the single judge's finding that the amendment did not fundamentally alter the character of the original infringement and passing off suit.
Kent Ro Systems Ltd. v.Varun Sood
Kent Ro Systems Ltd. filed a suit against Varun Sood and others alleging infringement of their design rights and passing off related to water purifier products. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions and damages concerning the use of deceptively similar designs (ESSENCIA/SPARKLE) compared to their registered designs (KENT WONDER/EKNT SUPREME). Ultimately, both parties reached a mutual settlement, leading the Madras High Court to decree the suit in terms of the Joint Memo of Compromise.
M/s. Hotel Sealord v.M/s.Hotel New Sealord
The Madras High Court addressed a civil suit filed by M/s. Hotel Sealord against M/s. Hotel New Sealord, alleging passing off and trademark infringement based on similar names. Although the plaintiff sought permanent injunction and damages, the court noted that the parties had reached an amicable settlement prior to judgment. Consequently, the Civil Suit was decreed strictly according to the terms outlined in the Memo of Compromise signed by both parties.
Apex Laboratories Private Ltd. v.Hezen Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Apex Laboratories Private Ltd., declaring them the exclusive proprietor of the trademark ZINCOVIT against Hezen Pharmaceuticals Limited. The court found that despite a past manufacturing agreement, which was subsequently terminated, the defendant had no right to claim ownership or make false propaganda about the mark. Consequently, the court granted an injunction restraining the defendant from making such claims and awarded damages to the plaintiff.
A.Kumar v.Radhakrishnan
A.Kumar filed a civil suit against Radhakrishnan and two other companies, M/s.Ashcom and German Refilling Pvt. Ltd., alleging infringement of their trademarks and passing off concerning inkjet, laser, and toner cartridges. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and accounts of profits. However, on the date of hearing, no counsel appeared for A.Kumar, leading the Madras High Court to dismiss the suit for non-prosecution.
M/s.Aachi Masala Foods (P) Ltd. v.HOTEL NAMMA AACHI
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Aachi Masala Foods (P) Ltd., finding that the defendant's use of 'HOTEL NAMMA AACHI' constituted both trademark infringement and passing off. The court determined that the defendant adopted a name visually and phonetically similar to the plaintiff's well-known mark, AACHI, with malicious intent to capitalize on the plaintiff's goodwill. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting permanent injunctions and awarding costs to the plaintiffs.
S. Sudhakar and Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. v.Sree Sai Raama Oil Mill, V. Dhadapani, and S. Ravichandran
This civil suit was filed by S. Sudhakar and Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. against Sree Sai Raama Oil Mill, alleging infringement of the registered trademark "UDHAIYAM" and copyright violation concerning their oil products. The plaintiffs sought perpetual injunctions, rendition of accounts, and damages for passing off. However, before a final judgment on merits, the parties reached an amicable settlement.
M/s.Praba's Vcare Health Clinic (P) Limited v.Veecare Hospitals and others
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s.Praba's Vcare Health Clinic, finding that the defendants infringed upon its registered trademark 'VCare'. The court determined that the defendant's use of 'Vee Care' was phonetically and alphabetically deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting a permanent injunction against further misuse and ordering the defendants to pay costs.
S.Sudhakar & Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s.Puvaneshwari Oil Traders
The plaintiffs, S.Sudhakar and Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit against M/s.Puvaneshwari Oil Traders alleging trademark and copyright infringement concerning their registered mark 'UDHAIYAM' used for food products like Gingelly Oil. The plaintiffs sought perpetual injunctions and damages for passing off. However, during the hearing, the plaintiff's counsel requested permission to withdraw the suit while retaining the liberty to file a fresh case should future infringement occur.
M/s.Add Print [India] Enterprises Private Limited v.M/s.Mohan Impressins Pvt. Ltd.
M/s.Add Print [India] Enterprises filed a civil suit against M/s.Mohan Impressins Pvt. Ltd., seeking perpetual injunctions against the use of deceptively similar marks ('Presto INSTANZA') and infringement of their registered design for box type pre-inked rubber stamps. The plaintiff also sought relief related to passing off and surrender of infringing materials. However, before the court could rule on the merits, both parties reached a settlement agreement.
M/s.Vaibhav Foods v.Narendra Kumar Mali / M/s.FOOD INDIA
M/s. Vaibhav Foods filed a suit against Narendra Kumar Mali and M/s. FOOD INDIA alleging infringement and passing off related to their unique chocolate packaging design. The Plaintiff demonstrated that they had successfully registered two designs (Nos. 274667 and 274668) for the specific arrangement and color combination of chocolates. The court found that the defendants were manufacturing and selling chocolates using a similar and identical design, leading to confusion in the market.
Sulphur Mills Limited v.Ms.Seema Rathi
Sulphur Mills Limited filed a civil suit alleging infringement of its patented agricultural composition (Patent No. 282429) against Ms. Seema Rathi and Balaji Agro. The parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement, which the court recorded and decreed.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Thalappakattu Briyani
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel, finding that the defendant's use of 'Thalappakattu Briyani' constituted passing off and trademark infringement. The court recognized the plaintiff's long-standing reputation and exclusive use of the name since 1957. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting a permanent injunction against the defendant and awarding damages.
Bharathi Consumer Care Products Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr.Suresh
Bharathi Consumer Care Products Pvt. Ltd. filed a civil suit against Mr. Suresh, alleging multiple infringements related to its detergent products. The claims included unauthorized use of the 'XXX' registered trademark, copyright infringement on the product's artistic label/trade dress, and passing off. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the case, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the suit.
Bharathi Consumer Care Products Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr.Suresh
Bharathi Consumer Care Products Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against Mr. Suresh, alleging multiple infringements related to its detergent products. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was infringing upon their registered trademark (XXX label) through manufacturing and distribution of similar goods, as well as committing copyright infringement regarding the artistic work on the packaging. Furthermore, the suit included claims of passing off based on trade dress similarity.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Thalappakattu Briyani Fast Food & Indian Chinese Thandoori
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel, finding that the defendant's use of 'Thalappakattu Briyani Fast Food & Indian Chinese Thandoori' constituted trademark infringement and passing off. The court held that the defendant willfully adopted a phonetically and deceptively similar name to capitalize on the plaintiff's established goodwill. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting permanent injunction and awarding damages.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Thalappakattu Briyani Fast Food & Indian Chinese Thandoori
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel, finding that the defendant's use of 'Thalappakattu Briyani Fast Food & Indian Chinese Thandoori' constituted trademark infringement and passing off. The court held that the defendant willfully adopted a phonetically and deceptively similar name to capitalize on the plaintiff's established goodwill. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting permanent injunction and awarding damages.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Thalappakattu Chicken Briyani
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel against Thalappakattu Chicken Briyani for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'Thalappakattu' was phonetically and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established brand, which had acquired distinctiveness through long-standing usage since 1984. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting a permanent injunction and awarding damages.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Halal Thalappakattu Biriyani
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel against Halal Thalappakattu Biriyani for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'Halal Thalappakattu Biriyani' was phonetically and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established brand, 'Thalappakatti Biriyani Hotel.' Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting a permanent injunction and awarding damages.
Cavinkare Pvt.Limited v.M/S.Ribock Industries
Cavinkare Pvt.Limited filed a civil suit against M/S.Ribock Industries alleging multiple infringements, including unauthorized use of Cavinkare's registered trademark 'ZOYO,' copyright violation concerning the 'NYLE' label design, and passing off. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and an accounting of profits. Ultimately, both parties reached an amicable settlement, which was formally recorded by the Madras High Court and incorporated into the final judgment.
Sulphur Mills Limited v.Crop Life Science Limited
Sulphur Mills Limited filed a suit against Crop Life Science Limited alleging infringement of its patented agricultural composition (Patent No. 282429). The parties subsequently reached a compromise and settled their disputes before the Madras High Court.
Parthasarathy Seniammal Educational Trust v.V.Rangasamy Naidu Educational Trust
This appeal before the Madras High Court addressed a dispute between two educational trusts regarding alleged trademark infringement and passing off. The appellants argued that mere abbreviations should not be considered infringement, while the respondents maintained that the single judge's decision was sound. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal but left all substantive issues open for resolution in the pending injunction application.
Unza International Limited / Cavinkare Private Limited (depending on the suit) v.Cavinkare Private Limited / Wipro Limited (depending on the suit)
This Madras High Court judgment, dated November 15, 2018, resolved multiple complex trademark disputes involving Unza International and Cavinkare Private Limited against Wipro entities. The court decreed Civil Suit No. 1006 of 2009 in favor of Unza International regarding the 'ENCHANTEUR' mark, while simultaneously dismissing other related suits (C.S.Nos. 221 & 222) and closing associated writ petitions based on a compromise memo signed by the parties. The ruling highlights how litigation can conclude through negotiated settlements.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.