Madras High Court Disposes of Petition Related To Trademark ‘Gold Winner’ After Parties Sign Memorandum of Compromise

Must Read

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish...

Follow us

In the case of M/s. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Ltd. v. M/s. Sri Shakthi Refineries Private Ltd., Justice Mr C.V Karthikeyan heard and disposed of the petition with a direction to the petitioner.

The petition was disposed of as both the parties signed a memorandum agreeing to specific terms and conditions. The petition was filed for:

  1. For issuing a permanent injunction to the defendant and their ancillaries from infringing the plaintiff’s registered Trade Mark Gold Winner by using any mark or word deceptively similar to the plaintiff trademark.
  2. For issuing a permanent injunction to the defendant and their ancillaries from passing off their inferior products as the plaintiff’s trademark Gold Winner by manufacturing pouch deceptively similar to the trademark or using offending words regarding it.
  3. For issuing a permanent injunction to the defendant and their ancillaries from violating the plaintiff’s copyright in the artistic work used in the plaintiff’s packing material or pouches for the packing of plaintiff’s Gold Winner by using packing dress and colour scheme similar to that of plaintiff’s/
  4. For preliminary decree directing the defendant to render an accurate account of profits made by the defendant by using the aforesaid offending label of Gold Premier.
  5. To direct the defendant and ancillaries to surrender the goods manufactured by defendants for destruction by order of this court.
  6. For erasure, removal or obliteration from all infringing goods, materials or articles in the possession or control of the defendant with the offending mark/labels and pouches deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s Gold Winner refined sunflower oil.

Memorandum of Compromise

The Memorandum of the Compromise between the parties included the following conditions that both the parties agreed to:

  1. The defendant agreed not to use the trademark or similar marking to that of the plaintiff with regards to Gold winner.
  2. The defendant undertakes not to pass-off the goods as and for those of the plaintiff’s by adopting the similar or identical get up, colour scheme, the arrangement of the colour, get up and logo of the plaintiff’s product.
  3. The defendant shall erase, remove, or obliterate from all infringing goods, materials or articles in his possession or control with the offending mark labels and pouches claimed to be deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s Gold Winner.
  4. The defendant shall not further violate the plaintiff’s copyright in the artistic work used in the packing pouches of the plaintiff. If violated, the defendant is subjected to compensate the plaintiff for his malafide action.
  5. The defendant agreed to compensate the plaintiff with the damages.
  6. Both the parties agreed to terms, final settlement of all disputes regarding the present subject matter and have no further claims against each other in regards to the present subject matter,

Decision of Court

The court disposed of the petition.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -