Plaintiff, as the registered proprietor, established the defendant's lack of a viable defense in trademark infringement and passing off, warranting a summary judgment.

JUDGMENT :

Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.

In a suit seeking remedies in respect of trade mark infringement and passing off, the plaintiff has presented this application for a summary judgment.

2. Suit summons was served on the defendant on 23.12.2023. The defendant filed the written statement along with an application to condone delay. The said application to condone delay was allowed on 04.07.2024 under A.No.2298 of 2024. Pursuant thereto, the written statement of the defendant was taken on file.

3. The defendant was represented by APR Associates at the time of filing of the written statement. Subsequently, there was more than one change of counsel. At the hearing on 02.07.2025, it was recorded that Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel, who had appeared at the hearing on 11.06.2026 and 16.06.2025, was not present and the matter was listed on 16.07.2025 in order to provide a final opportunity to the defendant. Because the defendant was not present on 16.07.2025, the defendant was set ex parte. Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar thereafter filed memo dated 11.08.2025 stating that he is withdrawing his vakalat. The defendant has not applied to set aside order dated 16.07.2025 or even appeared in person or through counsel thereafter. The present application is listed for hearing in the above facts and circumstances.

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the right to print and publish calendars and Telugu panchangams under the name N.V.GOPAL and CO, written in the Telugu script, was assigned to the plaintiff under deed of sale note dated 09.10.1993 by the erstwhile Proprietor, Mr. N.V.Ramakrishnan. He points out that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the following mark:

under trade mark No.1422868 with effect from 20.02.2008. By referring to the application filed by the defendant for registration of the impugned mark, learned counsel submits that the application was filed on 15.12.2022 on ‘proposed to be used’ basis. Upon being advertised in the Trade Marks Journal No.2111 on 03.07.2023, he submits that the plaintiff lodged a notice of opposition. On account of the defendant not adducing evidence in support of the application, he submits that the trade mark application was deemed to be abandoned.

5. Referring to the written statement of the defendant, learned counsel submits that a preliminary objection on the ground of alleged non-compliance with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 was raised. He also submits that an application for rejection of the plaint was filed on the ground that the suit was barred for non-compliance with Section 12A, and that such application was dismissed by order dated 04.07.2024 in A.No.2299 of 2024. Consequently, he contends that the said defence does not survive.

6. Learned counsel submits that the only other defence raised by the defendant is that the impugned mark, which translates as S.V.GOPAL & CO, was derived from and is an abbreviation of Sri Venkateswara. Learned counsel submits that this defence is entirely untenable and, in any event, does not explain the adoption of GOPAL & CO. He also relies upon evidence of use from 1993 in the form of invoices and other documents.

7. The question that falls for consideration is whether the plaintiff is entitled to a summary judgment. The grounds for summary judgment are set out in Rule 3 of Order 13A. Rule 3 reads as under:

“3. Grounds for summary judgment.- The Court may give a summary judgement against a plaintiff or defendant on a claim if it considers that-

(a) the plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim or the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim, as the case may be; and

(b) there