The court awarded a permanent injunction to the plaintiff, citing potential harm to reputation from the defendant's disparaging comments, with Rs.2 lakhs awarded for costs.

JUDGMENT

This action was instituted to permanently restrain the defendant from making derogatory/defamatory statements and to direct payment of a sum of Rs.10 lakhs as damages.

2. The suit summons was served on sole defendant on 20.09.2025.

Because the defendant failed to enter appearance in spite of service of suit summons, the defendant was set ex parte on 08.12.2025. Thereafter, the plaintiff adduced ex parte evidence by examining Mr.Ranendra Kumar Chanda as PW1. In course of the examination in chief of P.W.1, 15 documents were exhibited as Exs.P1 to P15.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff invited my attention to the first examination report of the patent office (Ex.P5), wherein the defendant’s application was cited as prior art. She points out that said application was abandoned. She also refers to the grant on 19.09.2023 (Ex.P2) by the patent office in respect of an invention titled “A PREASURE REGULATOR CUM WHISTLE COUNTER FOR A PRESSURE COOKER AND A PRESSURE COOKER WITH REGULATOR CUM WHISTLE COUNTER”. Relying on Exs.P9 and P10, which are certificates issued by the Chartered Accountant, she submits that considerable expenditure was incurred by the plaintiff on the above mentioned product and that said product has generated significant turnover. Referring to Exs.P11 and 13, she points out that the defendant has posted disparaging comments on the plaintiff’s facebook page.

4. The plaintiff has established that a patent was granted for the product referred to above. Any person interested has the statutory right to challenge a patent. In spite of having the option of filing either a post grant opposition or petition to revoke such patent, the defendant has not exercised these options till date. The option of seeking revocation remains open. Instead of resorting to these options, the defendant has made comments on the plaintiff’s facebook page that it is his innovation and patent idea.

5. Given the substantial sales of the plaintiff’s product, it is likely that this will affect the plaintiff’s reputation in the market. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief. In the absence of any evidence of consequential monetary loss or loss of reputation, I am not inclined to award damages. As the partly successful party, the plaintiff is entitled to costs. The defendant shall pay an aggregate sum of Rs.2 lakhs as costs to the plaintiff.

6. For reasons aforesaid, on the basis of evidence adduced by the plaintiff and in the absence of contra evidence from the defendant, the plaintiff is granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from making derogatory/ defamatory statements relating to the grant under Ex.P2. This injunction will not stand in the way of the defendant applying for revocation, if so intended. The defendant is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as costs towards court fee, lawyer’s fees and other expenses. Consequently, O.A.No.692 of 2025 is closed.

18-03-2026 Neutral Citation: Yes/No KAL Plaintiffs' witness:

1. Mr.Ranendra Kumar Chanda - P.W.1 Defendant's witness:

Nil Documents exhibited by the plaintiff:

18.03.2026 kal SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

KAL &

O.A.No.692 of 2025

18-03-2026