C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

High Court: Madras High Court Bench: Principal
  • 73
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The plaintiff, VGN Projects Estates Private Limited, filed commercial suit no.205 of 2023 against the defendants, M/s. VGK Builders Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. VGK Property Developers Pvt. Ltd., seeking reliefs for trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiff claimed registered trademark 'VGN' and alleged that the defendants' use of 'VGK' was deceptively similar. The suit sought permanent injunction, delivery up of infringing materials, and rendition of accounts. The judgment text provided is incomplete and contains only the plaint prayers; no court reasoning or decision is available.

Issue of Consideration

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (MAD) (03) 4

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

2025-03-12

Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

2025:MHC:705

VGN Projects Estates Private Limited

M/s. VGK Builders Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. VGK Property Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Commercial suit for trademark infringement and passing off

Remedy Sought

Permanent injunction against infringement and passing off, delivery up of infringing materials, and rendition of accounts.

Filing Reason

Plaintiff alleged that defendants were using the mark 'VGK' which was deceptively similar to its registered trademark 'VGN'.

Procedural History

The suit was filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules and Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Sections 134 & 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking permanent injunction and other reliefs.

Acts & Sections

  • Trade Marks Act, 1999: 134, 135
  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VII Rule 1
  • Madras High Court Original Side Rules: Order IV Rule 1
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Executability of Specific Performance Decree Despite Delay in Deposit of Balance Consideration. Non-Deposit Within Stipulated Time Does Not Automatically Render Decree Inexecutable; Judgment-Debtor Must Seek Rescission Under Sec...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Amalgamated Company's Claim for Set-Off of Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991. The court held that set-off under Section 12 is permissible only by the assessee who suffered the losses, and the amalgamating c...