Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. SUNDAR, J.
MMC PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED — Appellant
Vs.
MEDICURE LIFE SCIENCES INDIA PVT LTD — Respondent
Civil Suit No. 751 of 2017
Decided on : 11-10-2018
Trademark Infringement - Jurisdiction of Commercial Division - Trade Marks Act, 1999, Section 134 - Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Section 7
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for trademark infringement and passing off against the defendant for using the mark 'Medineuron' for identical products. The defendant did not appear before the court, and ex parte evidence was recorded. The plaintiff proved ownership of the trademark and its infringement by the defendant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had established the infringement of its registered trademark and passed a decree in favor of the plaintiff, granting injunctive reliefs and compensatory costs.
Issues: The issues involved the determination of jurisdiction of the Commercial Division, proof of trademark infringement, and passing off by the defendant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, specifically Section 134, and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Section 7, to establish its jurisdiction and grant the decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, granting injunctive reliefs and compensatory costs under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
M. Sundar, J.
There is a sole plaintiff and there is a lone defendant in the instant suit.
2. Jurisdiction of this Commercial Division qua this suit was determined on 20.09.2018 and the proceedings read as follows:
"Ms.Gladys Daniel, learned counsel on record for sole plaintiff is before this Commercial Division.
2. There is a sole defendant and the sole defendant has been duly served with suit summons on 22.06.2018, as per the cause list that has been placed before me. Name of the sole defendant is shown in the cause list, but none appears.
3. Therefore, I proceed to hear learned counsel for plaintiff on jurisdiction of this Commercial Division.
4. Learned counsel for plaintiff points out that this suit pertains to a complaint of infringement of plaintiff's trademark by the defendant. It is also pointed out that the trademark is registered and the mark is 'Medineuron' pertaining to pharmaceutical product. It is submitted that besides infringement, there is a complaint of passing off also.
5. In the light of the aforesaid scope of the plaint, Sub-Section (1) of Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, is attracted and therefore this Commercial Division will have jurisdiction to entertain this suit under first proviso to section 7 of 'The Commercial Courts Act, 2015,' ('said Act' for brevity) is her say.
6. I have perused the plaint and I have no difficulty in accepting the submission.
7. Jurisdiction of this Commercial Division qua this suit thus determined.
8. Having determined jurisdiction, I now turn to stage to the suit.
9. As mentioned supra, sole defendant has been duly served with suit summons on 22.06.2018 and the sole defendant has not chosen to come before this Commercial Division, though the name of the sole defendant is shown in the cause list.
10. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for plaintiff that no written statement has been filed either.
11. List this matter in the 'UNDEFENDED BOARD' on 27.09.2018.
12. While so listing on 27.09.2018, Registry shall show the name and full/Complete address of the sole defendant as in the short and long cause titles of the plaint.
13. List this matter on 27.09.2018 in the 'UNDEFENDED BOARD'."
3. A perusal of aforesaid proceedings would reveal that besides determination of jurisdiction of this Commercial Division qua this suit, trajectory of this suit has also been captured therein.
4. This suit was set down for recording exparte evidence before learned Additional Master-III and exparte evidence was recorded on 05.10.2018.
5. One G.Shanmugasundaram, who is described as Liaison Manager in the plaintiff's company, has deposed as P.W.1.
6. Twelve documents i.e., Exs.P1 to P12 were marked and an enumeration of the same is as follows:
"Ex.P1 is the original board resolution dated 05/10/2018 authorising me to give evidence in this suit.
Ex.P2 is the original carton and strip of the plaintiff's product.
Ex.P3 is the true copy of the firm registration certificate "Madras Medical Company".
Ex.P4 is the true copy of the certificate of incorporation MMC Healthcare Limited and copy of the certificate of Incorporation and Memorandum of Association of MMC Pharmaceutical Limited. (marked after comparing and verifying with the original).
Ex.P5 is the photocopy of the legal use certificate of plaintiff's trademark "Medineuron Tablets". (marked after comparing and verifying with the original).
Ex.P6 is the copy of the TM-16 dated 08.07.1999 to record the MMC Healthcare Limited (Plaintiff's predecessor) as proprietor of the trademark.
Ex.P7 is the deed of assignment of trademark Medineuron from MMC Healthcare Limited to MMC Pharmaceutic Limited. (marked after comparing and verifying with the original).
Ex.P8 is the copy of the TM-P recording the subsequent change of proprietorship in the trademark Medineuron.
Ex.P9 is the true copy of the product brochures of the plaintiff's.
Ex.P10 is the true copy and c
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
