SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

MADRAS HIGH COURT
Tattva Home Healthcare Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Mrs.Pooja Srinivasaraja, Founder One Life Charitable Trust, And Welfare Association – Respondent
OA 442/2021



Advocates:
['M/s Kria Law', '', 'M S BHARATH', 'R PARTHASARATHY', 'AKSHAYA P SACHIN']

O.A.Nos.442 to 444 of 2021

in

C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.26 of 2021

O.A.Nos.442 to 444 of 2021

in

C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.26 of 2021

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

O.A.No.442 of 2021:

This application has been filed praying to

grant an ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents, their partners,

their employees, officers, servants, agents and all others acting for and on

their behalf from making, selling distributing, advertising, offering for sale

rendering any services, especially, including platform for getting help to a

person of need in the form of Psychiatrist Psychologist, Art Therapist,

Drama Therapist, Counsellor, Psycho Therapist, Hypno Therapist and

Social worker and in any other manner directly or indirectly dealing with

any services in the name of ONE LIFE or any other similar mark amounting

to an infringement of the applicant's registered trademarks Nos.2878728 and

3027829 in Classes 44 and 41 respectively.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

O.A.Nos.442 to 444 of 2021

in

C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.26 of 2021

O.A.No.443 of 2021:

This application has been filed praying to

grant an ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents, their partners,

their employees, officers, servants, agents and all others acting for and on

their behalf from making, selling distributing, advertising, offering for sale

and in any other manner, directly or indirectly dealing with any services

especially including platform for getting help to a person of need in the

form of Psychiatrist Psychologist, Art Therapist, Drama Therapist,

Counsellor, Psycho Therapist, Hypno Therapist and Social worker in the

name of ONE LIFE or any other similar mark amounting to passing off of

goods and services of the respondent as and for that of the applicant's mark

ONE LIFE.

O.A.No.444 of 2021:

This application has been filed praying to

grant an ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents, their partners,

their employees, officers, servants, agents and all others acting for and on

their behalf from using the domains names www.onelifengo.com, or any

other similar domains and mobile applications and softwares bearing the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

O.A.Nos.442 to 444 of 2021

in

C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.26 of 2021

mark ONELIFE in any language amounting to passing off of the products

and services of the respondent as and for that of the applicant's mark

ONELIFE.

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the

respondent.

3.The case of the applicant is that in the year 2000, the applicant

company was incorporated and the trade mark “ONE LIFE” was registered

before the Trade Mark Registrar on 09.01.2015 for services falling under

Class 44, which includes therapy of all kinds. On 10.08.2015, for the same

trade mark “ONE LIFE”, registration was granted for services under Class

41. While so, it is contended by the applicant/plaintiff that the respondent,

which is the NGO, has adopted the same name of the plaintiff “ONE LIFE”

and also with domain name onelifengo.org. Alleging that use of the

trademark “ONELIFE” has part of their organisation carrying on cognate

activity, the applicant is put to irreparable injury and loss.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

O.A.Nos.442 to 444 of 2021

in

C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.26 of 2021

4.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant has

filed a detailed counter wherein it has been stated that the respondent is a

Charitable Trust and they commenced their service in the year 2019. It

concentrates on mental health and mental well being of the people. The

founder of the NGO has been awarded with citations and appreciated for her

service. Since the activity of the applicant/plaintiff and the

respondent/defendant are different, there is no possibility of causing any

loss to reputation or income to the applicant. Further, it is contended that the

applicant/plaintiff is using the trade name of “ONE LIFE” as two words.

Whereas the re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top