Does the the assignees have liberty to take advantage of the injunction granted to the appellants during the pendency of this suit: Handy Instant Foods V/S Nature’s Care

02 Jul Does the the assignees have liberty to take advantage of the injunction granted to the appellants during the pendency of this suit: Handy Instant Foods V/S Nature’s Care

The present suit is filed by the appellants Handy Instant Foods in the Honourable High Court of Madras before Honourable Justice C.V. Karthikeyan, seeking protection and infringement of their trademark DIAMEAL. [C.S. No. 602 of 2002, Decided On: 22.03.2021]

The present suit had been instituted by Handy Instant Foods a partnership firm taking advantage of Sections 105 and 106 of the Trade and Merchandise Act, 1958, seeking protection and infringement of their trademark DIAMEAL. The actual trademark of the appellants is DIVYA DIAMEAL. They are aggrieved with the respondents, since they infringed their mark by using the word DIAMEAL.

An affidavit has been filed by the appellants stating that on 11.11.2015 they had assigned their trademarks DIVYA and DIVYA DIAMEAL to Jeeva Industries Private Limited. A memo has also been filed by the appellants affirming the said fact. It has been stated that necessary protection should be given to the assignees Jeeva Industries Private Limited with respect to protection of the Trademarks DIVYA and DIVYA DIAMEAL.

The suit had been pending for the past 19 years and there had been no effective progress, quite apart from the fact that an order of interim injunction continues till this date.

The court in the present suit stated that it had no reasons to continue to hold over the plaint on the board of this court. The suit is dismissed. However, the injunction granted to the appellants would continue. If at all the Assignees, Jeeva Industries Private Limited have any cause of action either against the respondents or against anybody acting under the respondents or against any third party, they have liberty to institute a fresh suit and also take advantage of the fact that injunction had been granted to the appellants during the pendency of this suit. Thus with the above observation, the suit was dismissed.

Acts/Rules/Orders: Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 [repealed] – Section 105, Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 [repealed] – Section 106