IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10.01.2017 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.AUTHINATHAN O.S.A.Nos.321 of 2011 and 99 of 2013 Masti Health and Beauty Pvt., Ltd., Plot No.320, Road No.78, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad 500033 .. Appellant in O.S.A.No.321 of 2011 M/s.Shyam Investments, No.1, Cathedral Road, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 086 Rep. By its Partner, Ms.Nina Reddy .. Appellant in O.S.A.No.99 of 2013 Vs M/s.Shyam Investments, No.1, Cathedral Road, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 086 Rep. By its Partner, Ms.Nina Reddy .. Respondent in O.S.A.No.321 of 2011 Masti Health and Beauty Pvt., Ltd., Plot No.320, Road No.78, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad 500033 ..Respondent in O.S.A.No.99 of 2013 Prayer in O.S.A.No.321 of 2011:- This Original Side Appeal has been filed under Order XXXVI Rule 2 of Original Side Rules r/w Section 15 of the Letters Patent against the order and decreetal order passed in O.A.No.447/2011 in C.S.No.345 of 2011.
Prayer in O.S.A.No.99 of 2013:- This Original Side Appeal has been filed under Order XXXVI Rule 2 of Original Side Rules r/w Section 15 of the Letters Patent against the order and decreetal order passed in O.A.No.446/2011 in C.S.No.345 of 2011.
In O.S.A.No.321 of 2012:-
For Appellant : Mr.P.S.Raman, Senior Cousnel for Mr.A.A.Mohan For Respondent : Mr.M.K.Kabir, Senior Counsel for Mr.Anand Sashidharan In O.S.A.No.99 of 2013:-
For Appellant : Mr.M.K.Kabir, Senior Counsel for Mr.Anand Sashidharan For Respondent : Mr.P.S.Raman, Senior Cousnel for Mr.A.A.Mohan
COMMON JUDGEMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.Nagamuthu.J) The appellant in O.S.A.No.99 of 2013 has filed C.S.No.345 of 2011 for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant who is the appellant in O.S.A.No.321 of 2012 herein from in any manner using or otherwise dealing with the trade mark/trade name/domain name O2 or any other mark which is identical/similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark amounting to infringement of the trademark O2 registered under No.1574694 in classes 5,28 and 42 or in any other manner whatsoever; and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, from using the mark O2 or any mark similar thereto in respect of their trade, business as part of their trade name/business name/corporate name/domain name, in websites, service mark, spas, health clubs or in any other manner to pass off and/or enabling others to pass off as and for plaintiff's trade and business under the trade mark O2 or in any other manner whatsoever and also for damages and for other reliefs.
2. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed two Original Applications in O.A.Nos.446 & 447 of 2011. In O.A.No.446 of 2011, the plaintiff has prayed for temporary injunction and in O.A.No.447 of 2011, the plaintiff has prayed for injunction on the ground of passing off trade mark.
3. A learned Single Judge of this Court by way of common order dated 10.07.2012, dismissed O.A.No.446 of 2011 but, allowed O.A.No.447 of 2011. Challenging the dismissal of O.A.No.446 of 2011, the plaintiff has come up with O.S.A.No.99 of 2013 and challenging the order in O.A.No.447 of 2011, the defendant has come up with O.S.A.No.321 of 2012. That is how both the appeals are before this Court.
4. We have heard Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiff who is the appellant in O.S.A.No.99 of 2013 and respondent in O.S.A.No.321 of 2012 and Mr.K.Kabir, learned Senor Counsel appearing for the defendant who is the appellant in O.S.A.No.321 of 2012 and respondent in O.S.A.No.99 of 2013.
5. Both the learned Senior Counsel submitted to this Court that the Civil Suit itself is posted for trial on 18.01.2017 and therefore, these two appeals may be disposed of with a request to the trial Court to expedite the trial and dispose of the same at the earliest point of time. The said statement of the learned Senior Counsel on either side is recorded.
6. In view of the above, without going into the issues involved in these two appeals and considering the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on either side, we are inclined to dismiss both the appeals however, with a request to the trial Court to expedite the trial.
7. In the result, both the Original Side Appeals are dismissed with a request to the trial Court to expedite the trial in C.S.No.345 of 2011 and dispose of the same as early as possible. There shall be no order as to costs.
jbm Index: Yes/No (S.N.J.,) (N.A.N.J.,) 10.01.2017
S.NAGAMUTHU.J.,
AND N.AUTHINATHAN.J.,
jbm
O.S.A.Nos.321 of 2012 and 99 of 2013
10.01.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in