Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVARAJ PATIL & THE HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE P.D. DINAKARAN
TTK Textiles Ltd. No.6 Cathedral Road, Madras
Versus
Seagull Clothing (Pvt.)
Ltd., and another
O.S.A. No. 49 to 51 of 1997
Decided On : 07-04-1997
COPYRIGHT - INFRINGEMENT - INTERIM INJUNCTION - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - JURISDICTION - MAINTAINABILITY OF SUIT - TRADE MARK - PROPRIETORSHIP - VESTING OF COPYRIGHT - ARTISTIC WORK - PASSING OFF - SUIT FOR INJUNCTION - DISCRETION OF COURT - APPEAL AGAINST INTERIM INJUNCTION ORDER - SCOPE OF INTERFERENCE - COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957 - TRADE AND MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT, 1958.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, a manufacturer and seller of furnishing fabrics, undergarments, hosiery, and other articles, filed a suit against the defendants for infringement of copyright in their artistic work 'SEAGULL' and trade mark SEAGULL. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were using an identical artistic work and trade mark for their products, which amounted to infringement of copyright. The plaintiff also sought an interim injunction restraining the defendants from infringing their copyright and artistic work. The defendants denied the allegations and claimed proprietorship over the trade mark and artistic work.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit was maintainable and that the court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. However, the court found that the plaintiff had not yet launched its products bearing the disputed trade mark and artistic work SEAGULL, and that the defendants were already selling their products using the disputed trade mark. The court also found that there was a serious dispute between the parties as to the proprietorship over the trade mark and artistic work. The court held that it was not appropriate to grant an order of injunction in favor of the plaintiff when the plaintiff had not yet launched its products, and that the learned single Judge had rightly vacated the interim injunction granted earlier.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was maintainable? 2. Whether the court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit? 3. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to an interim injunction restraining the defendants from infringing their copyright and artistic work? 4. Whether the learned single Judge had erred in vacating the interim injunction granted earlier?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The suit was maintainable as the plaintiff had a cause of action for infringement of copyright and artistic work. 2. The court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the bill obtained from a shop at West Tambaram was not the sole basis for determining jurisdiction. 3. The plaintiff was not entitled to an interim injunction as it had not yet launched its products bearing the disputed trade mark and artistic work SEAGULL, and the defendants were already selling their products using the disputed trade mark. 4. The learned single Judge had not erred in vacating the interim injunction granted earlier as the exercise of discretion by the learned single Judge was not perverse, arbitrary, or capricious.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed.
Shivaraj Patil, J.
1. The plaintiff in C.S.No. 6 of 1997 has filed these appeals aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 12. 1997 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing O.A.Nos.7, 8 and 9 of 1997 and allowing application Nos.284 to 289 of 1997. The parties will be referred to in this Judgment as they are arrayed in C.S.No. 6 of 1997 for convenience.
2. The facts briefly stated, for the purpose of disposal of these appeals, are the following:-
The plaintiff has filed the said suit C.S.No.6 of 1997 seeking the relief of (a) Permanent injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their directors, servants, agents, heirs, legal representatives, assigns, distributors, stockists, representatives or any of them from in any manner infringing the plaintiffs copyright in artistic work ‘SEAGULL’ by use of an identical artistic work SEAGULL or any other artistic work which is a substantial reproduction of plaintiff’s artistic work SEAGULL or in a ny other manner whatsoever;
.(b) grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants or others claiming under them from in any manner passing off or enabling others to pass off the defendants goods as and for plaintiffs goods by use of trade mark SEAGULL or any mark similar to plaintiffs mark SEAGULL, or in any other manner whatsoever;
.(c) grant of perpetual order and injunction restraining the defendants or claiming under them from in any manner selling, assigning, licensing, disposing of and/or in any manner dealing with artistic work and trade mark SEAGULL including their stylized script which exclusively belongs to plaintiff or any other artistic work or trade mark deceptively similar thereto or in any other manner whatsoever:
.(d) ordering to surrender to plaintiff for destruction of all goods, containers, cartons, labels, prints, blocks, dyes, plates, moulds, stencils and other materials bearing the artistic work and trade mark SEAGULL or any artistic work which is a substantial reproduction of plaintiff’s artistic work SEAGULL; and for other consequential reliefs.
3. O.A.S.Nos. 7, 8 and 9 of 1997 were filed by the plaintiff seeking grant of temporary injunction and ad interim injunction restraining the defendants in terms of the prayers made in the plaint. Applications 284 to 286 of 1997 were filed by the defendants for vacating the interim injunction granted in O.A.Nos.7 to 9 of 1997 on 1. 1997, and applications 287 to 289 of 1997 were filed by the defendants for suspension of interim order granted in O.A.Nos.7 to 9 of 1997.
.4. The learned single Judge, after hearing both the parties, by the common Judgment and order dated 12. 1997, dismissed O.A.Nos. 7 to 9 of 1997, and ordered O.As.284 to 286 of 1997. In other words the interim orders of injunction granted in O.A.Nos.7 to 9 of 1997 were vacated. In the light of the said order, no orders were considered necessary in Application Nos. 287 to 289 of 1997, and they were closed by the common Judgment and order dated 12. 1997. It is this common judgment and order which is called in question in these appeals.
5. The plaintiff states that they are manufacturing and selling furnishing fabrics, under garments, hosiery, wearing apparel and other articles under several trade-marks and artistic works. Several of their trademarks and artistic works are registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, as well as the Copyrights Act, 1957. Their undergarments sold under various artistic works and trade marks are very popular amongst the trade and public in India and abroad. They are the proprietor of the artistic work and trade mark SEAGULL with the devise of Seagull bird and wavy lines. The trade mark was created by Trikaya Gray Advertising India Limited under a contract of service and instructions. Along with the trade mark SEAGULL an artistic work was given by the plaintiff to Trikaya in February, 1996 and the Artistic work was created and handed over to the plaintiff in March, 1996. The tra
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
