2023 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 91182
MADRAS HIGH COURT
M/S.KALEESUWARI REFINERY PVT – Appellant
Versus
RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD – Respondent
CS 381 2014
A party can give an undertaking to the court not to do a particular act, and if the court accepts the undertaking, it can pass an order based on the undertaking without deciding the merits of the case.
Headnote:
TRADE MARK - INFRINGEMENT - INJUNCTION - Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from telecasting and/or exhibiting or podcasting offending advertisement through television channels and satellite channels and/or exhibiting in cinema theatre/movie screen the story board of which are filed as a plaint document along with soft copy of the advertisement in a compact disc disparaging the Plaintiff's "Gold Winner" refined sunflower oil in the guise of comparative advertisement in any other manner whether directly or indirectly to promote the 1st Defendant Sunrich Sunflower Oil.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, M/s. Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit against the defendants, Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd., Interactive Television Pvt. Ltd., and Group M.Media India Pvt. Ltd., for permanent injunction to restrain them from telecasting and/or exhibiting or podcasting offending advertisement through television channels and satellite channels and/or exhibiting in cinema theatre/movie screen the story board of which are filed as a plaint document along with soft copy of the advertisement in a compact disc disparaging the Plaintiff's "Gold Winner" refined sunflower oil in the guise of comparative advertisement in any other manner whether directly or indirectly to promote the 1st Defendant Sunrich Sunflower Oil.
Finding of the Court:
The court recorded the undertaking given by the first defendant as disclosed in paragraph No.7 of their affidavit of undertaking dated 22.11.2023, wherein the first defendant undertook not to telecast the impugned advertisement and story board which has been filed as plaint document Nos.1 and 2 in any language in future.
Issues: Whether the defendants were infringing the plaintiff's trade mark by telecasting and/or exhibiting or podcasting offending advertisement through television channels and satellite channels and/or exhibiting in cinema theatre/movie screen the story board of which are filed as a plaint document along with soft copy of the advertisement in a compact disc disparaging the Plaintiff's "Gold Winner" refined sunflower oil in the guise of comparative advertisement in any other manner whether directly or indirectly to promote the 1st Defendant Sunrich Sunflower Oil?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the first defendant had undertaken not to telecast the impugned advertisement and story board which has been filed as plaint document Nos.1 and 2 in any language in future. However, they have also stated that they are not admitting to any of the claims or allegations made by the plaintiff in the present suit.
Final Decision: The court closed the suit with no costs.
C.S.No.381 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.12.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.S.No.381 of 2014
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its Director Mr.M.Arun,
No.53, Rajasekaran Street,
(Opp: Kalyani Hospital, Radhakrishnan Salai),
Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.
... Plaintiff
Vs.
1. Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd.,
Represented by its Director Mr.Dinesh Sahara,
Having local office at:
Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd., No.40/41,
Church Street,
Royapuram, Chennai - 600 013.
2. Interactive Television Pvt. Ltd.,
Having local office at No.2/2, Ground Floor, Poes Road,
Teynampet, Chennai - 18.
3. Group M.Media India Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by Ms.Kavitha Srinivasan,
13/7, 5th Main Road, Nandanam Extension,
Chennai - 600 045.
... Defendants
PRAYER: Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read
with Order VII Rule I of C.P.C. seeking the following reliefs:
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.381 of 2014
a) perpetual injunction to restrain the Defendants, their distributors,
marketers, franchisees, dealers, agents, stockist, representatives, advertisers,
successors-in- business, assigns or any one claiming through or under them
from telecasting and/or exhibiting or podcasting offending advertisement
through television channels and satellite channels and or exhibiting in
cinema theatre/movie screen the story board of which are filed as a plaint
document along with soft copy of the advertisement in a compact disc
disparaging the Plaintiff's "Gold Winner" refined sunflower oil in the guise
of comparative advertisement in any other manner whether directly or
indirectly to promote the 1st Defendant Sunrich Sunflower Oil;
b. perpetual injunction to restrain the Defendant, their distributors,
marketers, franchisees, dealers, agents, stockist, representatives, advertisers,
successors-in- business, assigns or any one claiming rights through them or
under them from in any manner resorting to unfair disparagement of the
Plaintiff's "Gold Winner" Refined Sunflower oil under the guise of
comparative advertisement in any other manner whatsoever;
c. restraining the Defendants, their men, agents and affiliates
permanently by way of a permanent injunction from adopting the Plaintiff's
Registered Trade Mark "Gold Winner" for Sunflower Oil registered, vide.
T.M.No.605323 in Class 29, T.M. No. 1147963 in Class 29, T.M.No.
1399086 in Class 29 and Copyright in the artistic work in the trade dress
and the label in the Pouch for packing "Gold Winner Refined Sunflower
Oil" registered, vide. Registration No.A68242/2005 of the Plaintiff whether
2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.381 of 2014
directly or indirectly containing aforesaid trade mark and trade dress of the
Plaintiff whether identical, similar or deceptively similar, for any purpose or
for advertising and /or promoting any of their product without authorization
from the Plaintiff;
d. Jointly and severally directed the Defendants to pay to the Plaintiff
a sum of Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs (Rs.25,00,000/-) as damages for the
loss inflicted upon the Plaintiffs by conceiving and telecasting and
exhibiting the offensive disparaging advertisement to promote 1st
Defendant Sunrich refined sunflower oil in enclosed story board and soft
copy of the aforesaid;
e. For costs of the suit.
For Plaintiff
:
Mr.R.Anish Kumar
For Defendants
:
Ms.R.Supraja
for Mr.Meelan Prabu
for D1
Mr.K.F.Manavalan
for D2 and D3
JUDGMENT
An Affidavit of Undertaking has been filed on behalf of the new
management of the first defendant Company. Pursuant to the orders passed
by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, the first defendant has
3/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.381 of 2014
now been takenover by M/s.Patanjali Foods Ltd. The Certificate of
Incorporation has also been enclosed as Annexure - A in the affidavit of
undertaking. In paragr