Pathanjali Ayurved Limited Represented by its Director, New Delhi vs Arudra Engineers Private Limited Represented by its Managing Partner R. Natraj

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Mad) 550

R.SUBBIAH, C.SARAVANAN
Pathanjali Ayurved Limited Represented by its Director, New Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Arudra Engineers Private Limited Represented by its Managing Partner R. Natraj – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :C. Aryama Sundarm, Senior Counsel assisted by Rohini Musa, Simranjeeth Singh, M/s. P. Giridharan, Sathish Parasaran, Senior Counsel assisted by Simranjeeth Singh, M/s. P. Giridharan, S. Santhosh, Advocates.
For the Respondent:P.R. Raman, Senior Counsel, C. Seethapathy, Advocate.

Table of Content
1. prayer for appeal and procedural background. (Para 1 , 2)
2. plaintiff's use and reputation of trademark. (Para 3 , 4)
3. filing of interim injunction and allegations by plaintiff. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. defendant's arguments against allegations and trademark usage. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
5. court's analysis of trademark ownership. (Para 11)
6. parameters for determining trademark infringement. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
7. examination of common law and statutory provisions on trademark. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
8. evaluation of evidence for trademark reputation. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
9. discussion on due cause and unfair advantage. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
10. deliberation on balance of convenience for injunction. (Para 25 , 26 , 27)
11. summation of court's decision on injunction. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
12. court's conclusion on substantive rights and trademark entitlement. (Para 50 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64)
13. emphasis on the entirety of trademark registration. (Para 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70)
14. criteria for likelihood of consumer confusion. (Para 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77)
15. final remarks on trademark protection and injunction. (Para 78)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(Mad) 550

R.SUBBIAH, C.SARAVANANPathanjali Ayurved Limited Represented by its Director, New Delhi – AppellantVersusArudra Engineers Private Limited Represented by its Managing Partner R. Natraj – Respondent

Cases Referred (14)

R.SUBBIAH, C.SARAVANAN
Pathanjali Ayurved Limited Represented by its Director, New Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Arudra Engineers Private Limited Represented by its Managing Partner R. Natraj – Respondent