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

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

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