Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 54163
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
N. Anand Venkatesh, K.K. Ramakrishnan, JJ
H.Rajagopalan – Appellant
Versus
K.Hariharan – Respondent
Appeal CAD(MD) No.7 of 2025 | C.M.P (MD) Nos.20335 and 20336 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ramesh Ganapathy
For the Respondents: V. Chandrasekar
Under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, a court is mandated to stay proceedings in a trademark suit if an application for rectification of the trademark is pending before the appropriate authority.
Headnote:The appeal was filed under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, challenging a judgment that dismissed a suit for infringement and passing off of the registered trademark "Sri Mangalambika Vilas." The plaintiff alleged that the defendant established a competing hotel under a deceptively similar mark, "Mangalambika Coffee and Tiffin Center," while a rectification application for the cancellation of the defendant's trademark was pending. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to establish deceptive similarity. The primary issue was whether the Trial Court ought to have stayed the suit under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, due to the pending rectification petition. The court held that Section 124 "mandates that wherever any application for rectification is pending, the concerned Court has to stay the proceedings till the authority decides the rectification application filed by the party." Consequently, the failure to stay the proceedings vitiated the entire trial. In the result, this appeal is allowed in the above terms, and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Thanjavur, in O.S.No.160 of 2022, dated 13.02.2025, is hereby set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the trademark infringement suit and the trial court's dismissal based on lack of deceptive similarity. (Para 6) |
##PAGE1##
Appeal CAD(MD) No.7 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.06.2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Appeal CAD(MD) No.7 of 2025
and
C.M.P (MD) Nos.20335 and 20336 of 2025
H.Rajagopalan ... Appellant
Vs.
K.Hariharan ... Respondent
PRAYER:- This Appeal filed under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts
Act, 2015, to set aside the judgment and decree, dated 13.02.2025 passed
in O.S.No.160 of 2022 passed by the learned Principal District Judge,
Thanjavur and allow the appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.Ramesh Ganapathy
For Respondent : Mr.V.Chandrasekar
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2026 03:17:04 pm )
##PAGE2##Appeal CAD(MD) No.7 of 2025
J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.)
This appeal has been filed under Section 13 of the Commercial
Courts Act, challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned
Principal District Judge, Thanjavur, in O.S.No.160 of 2022, dated
13.02.2025, dismissing the suit filed by the appellant for infringement of
the registered trademark "Sri Mangalambika Vilas" and for payment of
damages for infringement and passing off of the plaintiff's registered
trademark.
2. The appellant is the plaintiff. The case of the appellant is that
they are running a hotel named Sri Mangalambika Vilas Coffee Hotel
near Kumbeshwarar Temple at Kumbakonam. The further case of the
plaintiff is that they have been using this trademark from the year 1914
onwards. The trademark carries the word mark as well as the device mark
containing the portrait of the father of the plaintiff, who is the founder of
the said hotel. The further case of the plaintiff is that he has earned a lot
2/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2026 03:17:04 pm )
##PAGE3##Appeal CAD(MD) No.7 of 2025
of goodwill and reputation. The grievance expressed by the plaintiff is
that he nominated the defendant to run the business in his absence and
when he returned from America, the plaintiff found that the defendant
had stopped running the said hotel and had established a hotel adjacent to
the plaintiff's hotel under a similar and identical trademark,
"Mangalambika Coffee and Tiffin Center". Hence, it is alleged that the
defendant had committed infringement and passing off of the plaintiff's
registered trademark in order to cause confusion in the minds of the
customers and to make unlawful gain out of the same.
3. The further case of the plaintiff is that the
respondent/defendant had managed to register a device mark in the year
2019 and that a rectification application was filed for the cancellation of
the trademark registered by the defendant, which was pending. It is under
these circumstances that the suit came to be filed before the Court below.
4. The respondent/defendant filed a written statement and took
a stand that there is no deceptive similarity between the logo of the
3/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2026 03:17:04 pm )
##PAGE4##Appeal CAD(MD) No.7 of 2025
trademark registered by the defendant and that of the plaintiff. The
defendant took a further stand that he had registered the device mark in
the year 2019, whereas the plaintiff had registered the same only in the
year 2021. Apart from that, the defendant took a stand that
Mangalambika is the name of the goddess and that no one can claim a
monopoly over this name and that the registration obtained by the
defendant does not contain the photograph of the plaintiff's father, which
is the main identity of the hotel run by the plaintiff and therefore, there is
no similarity between the two registered trademarks. Accordingly, the
defendant sought dismissal of the suit.
5. The Trial Court, on considering the pleadings, framed the
following issues:
1.Whether permanent injunction shall be granted
against defendant and his men, agent fr
