- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
NAGARJUNA AGRICHEM LTD. v. CROP LIFE SCIENCE LTD.
Factual and Procedural Background
The plaintiff, Nagarjuna Agrichem Ltd., filed a suit against the defendant, Crop Life Science Ltd., alleging infringement of its registered trademarks "PROFEX" and "PROFEX SUPER" and copyright infringement related to an artistic work described as the "device of a leaf." The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendant and associated persons from using identical or deceptively similar trademarks and artistic devices, damages, delivery up of infringing materials for destruction, and an account of profits. An injunction was granted on 09.03.2012. Subsequently, the defendant filed an affidavit stating that it had ceased manufacturing goods under the disputed trademarks "PROFIX" and "PROFIX SUPER" and did not intend to manufacture or sell products under those marks. Based on this undertaking, the suit was dismissed as having become infructuous, with no order as to costs, and connected applications were closed.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the defendant's use of the trademarks "PROFIX" and "PROFIX SUPER" constituted infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademarks "PROFEX" and "PROFEX SUPER" and amounted to passing off.
- Whether the defendant infringed the plaintiff's copyright in the artistic work "device of a leaf" by using an identical or substantially similar device.
- Whether the plaintiff was entitled to injunctive relief, damages, delivery up of infringing materials, and an account of profits based on the alleged infringements.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court noted that an injunction had previously been granted in favor of the plaintiff. Upon receiving the defendant's affidavit confirming cessation of manufacturing and selling products under the disputed trademarks, the court found that the suit had become infructuous. Consequently, the court dismissed the suit without costs, indicating that the defendant's undertaking effectively resolved the matter without the need for further adjudication.
Holding and Implications
The court's final decision was to DISMISS the suit as having become infructuous due to the defendant's undertaking to cease use of the disputed trademarks and products. The direct effect of this decision is the termination of the litigation without any order as to costs. The opinion does not establish any new precedent or broader legal implications beyond the resolution of the parties' dispute.
C.S.No.145 of 2012 and A.Nos.1988, 1989 & 1990 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.S.No.145 of 2012 and
A.Nos.1988, 1989 & 1990 of 2013
Nagarjuna Agrichem Ltd., MD Chambers, New No.53, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600004. ...Plaintiff Vs.
Crop Life Science Ltd.,
209, 'Primate',
Near Judges Bunglow Cross Road, Bodakdev, Ahmedbad - 380015, Gujarat. ...Defendant
Prayer: Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the original side rules and Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C., r/w. Sections 27, 134 & 135 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 and Sections 51, 55 and 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957, praying as follows:-
a) a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, by itself, its distributors, stockists, servants, agents, retailers, marketers, advertisers, dealers, legal representatives or any other person claiming under them from in any manner infringing the plaintiff's copyright in the artistic work 'device
1/7
of a leaf' by use of an identical device of a leaf or any other device, which is a substantial reproduction of plaintiff's artistic work 'device of a leaf' in colour scheme, getup, layout and arrangement of features amounting to infringement of copyright of artistic work or in any other manner whatsoever;
b) a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, by itself, its distributors, stockists, servants, agents, retailers, marketers advertisers, dealers, legal representatives or any other person claiming under them from in any manner manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, stocking, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in insecticides under the trademarks PROFIX and/or PROFIX SUPER or any other mark deceptively similar to plaintiff's trade marks PROFEX and / or PROFEX SUPER with identical colour scheme, get-up, layout, shape and size of carton so as to pass off their products as and for the plaintiff's products under the said marks or in any manner whatsoever;
c) the Defendant be ordered to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as liquidated damages for committing acts of infringement against Plaintiff's copyright in artistic works and to pass off their products as and for the Plaintiff's products;
d) the Defendant be ordered and decreed to deliver up for destruction to the Plaintiff all labels, dyes, blocks, plates, moulds, screen prints, packing materials, stationery and other materials belonging to the defendant in the nature of passing off their products as and for the plaintiff's prior adopted and distinctive trademarks PROFEX and PROFEX SUPER
2/7
with the almost identical trademarks PROFIX and PROFIX SUPER and infringing the copyright in the unique artistic work in 'device of a leaf' and identical artistic work.
e) a preliminary decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff directing the Defendant to render accounts of profits made by them by use of the almost identical / deceptively similar trade marks PROFIX and PROFIX SUPER and the identical device of leaf and a final decree be passed in favour of the Plaintiff for the amount of profits found to have been made by the Defendant after the latter has rendered accounts;
f) for costs of the entire proceedings. For Plaintiff : Mr.Keerthi Kiran for Mr.Arun C.Mohan
For Defendant : Mrs.K.Paameshwari
J U D G M E N T
The suit is one for infringement trademark and passing off the plaintiff's registered trademarks "PROFEX" and "PROFEX SUPER". The plaintiff would seek reliefs of injunction claiming that the defendant is using trademarks 'Profex' and 'Profex Super', which are deceptively similar to the registered marks of the plaintiff.
2.It is seen from the records that an order of injunction is granted
3/7
on 09.03.2012. The defendant has filed an affidavit stating that it has stopped manufacturing goods under the disputed trademarks "PROFIX" and
"PROFIX SUPER" and it is also stated that the defendant does not intend manufacturing or selling products with the above said trademark. The said affidavit is taken on record.
3.In view of the undertaking given by the defendant, this suit is dismissed of having become infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected applications are closed.
21.09.2021
kkn Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking
4/7
List of witness and documents filed on the side of the plaintiff:
Nil
List of witness and documents filed on the side of the defendant:
Nil
21.09.2021
kkn
5/7
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
KKN
C.S.No.145 of 2012 and
A.Nos.1988, 1989 & 1990 of 2013
6/7
21.09.2021
7/7
Alert