Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 53125
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. Kumuresh Babu, J
Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel – Appellant
Versus
Thalapakattu Chicken Biriyani – Respondent
CS No. 202 of 2007
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vijayan Subramanian, E. Manoharan
For the Respondents: No appearance
A trademark infringement suit may be dismissed as unnecessary for further adjudication if the defendant changes the offending trademark, rendering the cause of action moot.
Headnote:The suit was filed under Section 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant for infringement and passing off of the trade mark 'Thalappakatti Biriyani Hotel' by using the mark 'Thalappakattu Chicken Biriyani'. The plaintiff sought an injunction, rendering of accounts, and surrender of offending materials. The court was presented with the submission that the defendant had changed their trade mark, rendering the dispute moot. Consequently, the court found that no further adjudication was necessary. The suit stands dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's submission regarding the change of defendant's trademark. (Para 1) |
| 2. dismissal of suit due to lack of further need for adjudication. (Para 2) |
The suit filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC read with Order IV Rule 1 of High Court OS Rules and Section 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, praying for the following reliefs:-
(a) Granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their men, servants, agents or anyone cliaming through or under them from in any manner, infinging the plaintiffs’ Trade Mark and Trading style ‘Thalappakatti Biriyani Hotel’ by using the offending Trade Mark and Trading style ‘Thalappakattu Chicken Biriyani’ or any other mark or marks which are similar or in any way deceptively similar to or a colourable imitation of the plaintiff’s Trade Mark ‘Thalappakatti Biriyani Hotel’.
(b) Granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their men, servants, agents or anyone claiming through or under them from in any manner passing off their food products as that of the plaintiff’ by using the offending Trade Mark and the trading style ‘Thalappakattu Chicken Biriyani’ as and for the celebrated food products of the plaintiff with the Trade Mark ‘Thalappakatti Biriyani Hotel’ or by using any other Trademakr which is similar or deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff’s trade mark ‘Thalappakatti Biriyani Hotel’.
(c) Directing the defendant to render a true and faithful account of the profits earned by them through the sale of food products bearing the offending trade mark ‘Thalappakattu Chicken Biriyani’ and directing payment of such profits to the plaintiff by way of damages for passing off committed by the defendant.
(d) Directing the defendants to surrender to the plaintiff the entire stock of unused offending goods with Trade Mark ‘Thalappakattu Chicken Biriyani’ together with cartons, strips, brochures, printing blocks etc. bearing the offending Trademark for destruction.
(e) Directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff the costs of the suit.
J U D G M E N T
The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that by efflux of time, the suit requires no further adjudication as the defendant had changed the Trade Mark.
2. Recording the same, nothing further to be adjudicated in the suit and accordingly, the suit stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
