WIPRO LTD., v. NEELGIRI WOOD CRAFTS,, Madras High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The plaintiff filed a suit seeking multiple reliefs including permanent injunctions restraining the defendants and their associates from infringing the plaintiff's registered trademarks "WIPRO" and "RAINBOW FLOWER," or any similar marks, as well as from passing off the defendants' goods as those of the plaintiff. The suit also sought injunctions against copyright infringement related to the stylized script and artistic work of the trademarks, a declaration that the trademarks are well-known under the Trademarks Act, 1999, orders for delivery and destruction of infringing goods and materials, rendition of accounts of profits, damages amounting to Rs.10,05,000/-, and costs of the suit. The plaintiff's counsel submitted that the defendant had undertaken not to use the impugned trademark and produced a letter dated 05.04.2006 to that effect. It was contended that the defendant had ceased use of the trademark, rendering the suit devoid of any surviving claims. Consequently, the suit was dismissed under Rule 3(a) of Order XIII A of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, with liberty reserved to take action if any future infringement occurs.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the defendants infringed the plaintiff's registered trademarks "WIPRO" and "RAINBOW FLOWER" or any similar marks.

Whether the defendants engaged in passing off their goods as those of the plaintiff by using identical or similar trademarks.

Whether the defendants infringed the plaintiff's copyright in the stylized script and artistic work of the trademarks.

Whether the plaintiff's trademarks "WIPRO" and "RAINBOW FLOWER" qualify as well-known trademarks under the Trademarks Act, 1999.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to delivery and destruction of infringing goods and materials, rendition of accounts of profits, damages, and costs.

Whether the suit should be dismissed due to cessation of the defendant's use of the impugned trademarks.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions restraining the defendants and their associates from infringing the plaintiff's registered trademarks or using any similar marks.

The plaintiff asserted rights against passing off, copyright infringement, and sought declarations of the trademarks as well-known.

The plaintiff requested delivery up and destruction of infringing goods, rendition of accounts, damages, and costs.

The plaintiff's counsel submitted that the defendant had undertaken not to use the impugned trademark and had ceased its use, as evidenced by a letter dated 05.04.2006.

Defendant's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the defendant's legal arguments.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court noted the plaintiff's submission that the defendant had undertaken not to use the impugned trademark and had ceased its use. Although the letter produced did not explicitly constitute an undertaking, the court accepted that the defendant had stopped using the trademark. Based on this cessation of use, the court found that no issue survived for adjudication. Accordingly, the court dismissed the suit under Rule 3(a) of Order XIII A of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, while reserving liberty for the plaintiff to take action in case of any future infringement.

Holding and Implications

The suit is dismissed under Rule 3(a) of Order XIII A of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

The direct effect of this decision is that the plaintiff's suit for injunctions, declarations, damages, and other reliefs is disposed of on the basis that the defendant ceased use of the impugned trademarks. The court has reserved the plaintiff's right to initiate action if any future infringement occurs. The opinion does not establish any new legal precedent.

WIPRO LTD., v. NEELGIRI WOOD CRAFTS,

The suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking

a) A permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their directors, partners, their officers, servants, agents and representatives from infringing the plaintiff's registered trademarks WIPRO and RAINBOW FLOWER by the use of an identical trademark WIPRO and RAINBOW FLOWER or any mark/s similar thereto or in any other manner whatsoever;

b) A permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their directors, partners, their officers, servants, agents and representatives from passing off and enabling others to pass off the defendants goods as and for the plaintiff's goods by manufacturing and selling and offering for sale plywood, wood products or any other product whatsoever under the trademarks WIPRO, RAINBOW flower logo or any mark/s similar thereto or in any other manner whatsoever;

c) A permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their Page No.4/8 / directors, partners, their officers, servants, agents and representatives from infringing the plaintiff's copyright in the stylized script/ font of the trademark WIPRO and artistic work RAINBOW FLOWER device by printing, publishing, selling, offering for sale any product including ply woods, block wood, wood products or in any manner using the identical script/ font of the trademark WIPRO and artistic work RAINBOW flower logo, which are identical with the plaintiff's copyright in the artistic work, in the stylized script/ font of WIPRO and RAINBOW FLOWER;

d) A declaration to the effect that the plaintiff's trademarks WIPRO and the RAINBOW FLOWER DEVICE are well-known trademarks as stated in the Trademarks Act, 1999;

e) An order for delivery up to the plaintiff or its authorized representative of all goods, dyes, blocks, labels, pamphlets and any other printed matter bearing the trademark WIPRO and artistic work RAINBOW flower logo or any mark similar thereto for destruction;

f) An order for rendition of accounts of profits made by the Page No.5/8 / defendants on account of use of the trademark WIPRO and RAINBOW flower logo be made and a decree for the amount so found due be passed in favour of the plaintiff;

g) The defendants be decreed to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.10,05,000/- as damages for acts of infringement and passing off committed by the defendants by using identical trademarks WIPRO and the RAINBOW flower logo and

h) for costs of the suit.

2. Miss.Chandini Pradeed Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs would submit that the defendant had undertaken not to use the impugned trademark WIPRO. She has also produced a letter dated 05.04.2006. Though, the said letter does not in terms read as an undertaking not to use the trademark, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs would submit that the defendant has stopped using the trademark of the plaintiffs and therefore nothing survives in the suit. Page No.6/8 /

3. Hence, the suit is dismissed under Rule 3(a) of Order XIII A of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, liberty is however reserved to take action if there is any infringement in future. 28.06.2021 Index : No Internet : Yes Non-speaking order List of the witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiff : Nil List of Exhibits marked on the side of the plaintiff : Nil List of the witnesses examined on the side of the defendants: Nil List of Exhibits marked on the side of the defendants: Nil 28.06.2021 Page No.7/8 / R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. 28.06.2021 Page No.8/8 /

CS.214/2006

WIPRO LTD., v. NEELGIRI WOOD CRAFTS,

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

Defendant's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

WIPRO LTD., v. NEELGIRI WOOD CRAFTS,

Comments