1. Application to close allegedly newly opened stores under infringing trade mark for violation of status quo order. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. Kumaresh Babu, J
Mohammed Usman Sait – Appellant
Versus
Mohammed Saleem Sait – Respondent
A No. 990 of 2026 | O.A.170 of 2026 | C.S(COMM DIV) No. 122 of 2025
1. Application to close allegedly newly opened stores under infringing trade mark for violation of status quo order. (Para 1 , 2 )
2. Applicant alleges new stores opened in violation; respondent denies new outlets, claims extension or stocking. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Allegations of new stores were pre-existing before Division Bench order; no violation as actions not new outlets. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
4. Status quo order not violated by extension of existing business or stocking premises not amounting to new outlet. (Para 9 , 10 )
5. Applications dismissed; parties to proceed with suit; no order as to costs. (Para 11 )
No, as long as it is an extension of existing business or stocking premises and not a new outlet. (Para 9 , 10 )
No, because those facts were already considered and the order was passed with that knowledge. (Para 8 , 9 )
An extension of existing business or a stocking facility not operating as a separate showroom does not constitute a new outlet. (Para 5 , 9 , 10 )
PRAYER in A No. 990 of 2026 :- Application filed to direct the Respondent/ Defendant to forthwith close and cease operations of all newly opened or extended stores/ outlets operating under the name “Joonus Sait” which were not disclosed in the Respondent/ Defendant’s Common Counter Affidavit or Written Statement and/ or which have been opened or expanded during the pendency of the suit in violation of the status quo order and without any lawful authority.
PRAYER in O.A.No.170 of 2026:- Original Application filed seeking interim injunction restraining the Respondent/ Defendant from expanding, extending, opening, operating or continuing to operate any business, outlet or stores, whether new, extended, additional or otherwise under the trade name “Joonus Sait” or any part or variation thereof, till the disposal of suit.
COMMON ORDER
1. The above application has been filed to direct the Respondent/ Defendant to forthwith close and cease operations of all newly opened or extended stores/ outlets operating under the name “Joonus Sait” which were not disclosed in the Respondent/ Defendant’s Common Counter Affidavit or Written Statement and/ or which have been opened or expanded during the pendency of the suit in violation of the status quo order and without any lawful authority.
2. The Original Application has been filed seeking interim injunction restraining the Respondent/ Defendant from expanding, extending, opening, operating or continuing to operate any business, outlet or stores, whether new, extended, additional or otherwise under the trade name “Joonus Sait” or any part or variation thereof, till the disposal of suit.
3. Heard Mr.Amit Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Ms.S.Suba Shiny, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicant had instituted a suit in respect of his registered trade mark which has been infringed to by the respondent and had sought for various reliefs. Originally, interim reliefs were sought for against the respondent and the same was disposed of by this Court against which an Intra-Court Appeal was preferred and the Division Bench of this Court had directed the respondent to maintain status quo. He would submit that it had now come to the knowledge of the applicant that the respondent in violation of his undertaking and the order of the status quo had now opened a fourth store in Alsa Mall diagonally opposite to the existing store and an another store in Anna Nagar for promoting Kids Winter wear collection. Therefore, the respondent had expanded his scope of business by using the infringing trade mark. His expansion by opening a new store and infringing the trade mark is itself contrary to his undertaking and also to the order of status quo and hence, he would submit that an injunction restraining him from expanding/ extending/ opening/ operating and continuing to operate any business outlet/ stores within the new extended/ additional or otherwise under the trade name would have to be injuncted and also a direction to be issued to forthwith close and cease the operation of the two newly opened stores or otherwise, the applicant would be put to irreparable loss.
5. Countering his arguments, Ms.S.Suba Shiny learned counsel appearing for the respondent would at the outset submit that it is a fragile imagination of the applicant to contest that the respondent had opened new shops as alleged. She would contend that the respondent has not violated any orders of the Division Bench as the respondent had neither expanded or opened any new outlet after the order made by the Division Bench. The premises at Alsa Mall, Egmore had only been hired for stocking purposes of the materials and not as a showroom for sales. The alleged showroom at Anna Nagar is a part of the existing store and not a separate unit or outlet. She would also place on record the GST registration used in the billing at the shop in
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top