At, High Court of Judicature at Madras
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN
For the Plaintiffs: Gladys Daniel, Advocate. For the Defendant: Abitha Banu for Surana & Surana, Advocates.
M. Sathyanarayanan, J.
1. The learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs, as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the defendant, have jointly filed a Memorandum of Compromise dated 16.2.2016, vide Diary No. 6385 dated 18.2.2016, and would submit that in the light of the compromise memo, the suit may be decreed in the terms mentioned in it.
2. It is relevant to extract the terms of the compromise memo dated 16.2.2016, as under:-
"1. The terms Plaintiffs and Defendant shall mean and include the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of each party.
2. Subject to the terms of this Memo of Compromise, the Defendant shall be entitled to use and to seek/continue registration of the trademark AGRIGOLD only in respect of Brokerage on Commodity exchange, shares and securities included in Class 36.
3. The Defendant shall not use the trademark AGRIGOLD in respect of any other goods or services except as set out in para 2 above namely Brokerage on Commodity exchange, shares & securities included in Class 36. Similarly Plaintiff shall not use and/or seek registration of the trademark AGRIGOLD in respect of commodity exchange, shares & securities.
4. The Defendant shall not use the trademark AGRIGOLD in the style of writing set out here below, which is being used by the Plaintiffs in the suit.
5. The Defendant shall not file any application for registration of the trademark AGRIGOLD either in word or device in respect of any other goods or services, except for Brokerage on Commodity exchanges, shares & securities included in Class 36.
6. Subject to para 3 above, the Defendant shall not file any opposition to the applications filed by the Plaintiffs for registration of the Trademark AGRIGOLD. Similarly Plaintiffs shall not file any opposition to the applications filed by the Defendant for registration of the Trademark AGRIGOLD in respect of services mentioned in para 2 above. Plaintiffs agree to withdraw their opposition filed against Defendant's TM application no. 1576492 (subject to Defendant amending the description of services to the services mentioned in para 2 above).
7. In view of the above, the Plaintiffs undertake to withdraw the ORA No. 231/2008/TM/MUM pending on the file of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board at Chennai.
8. C.S. No. 131 of 2008 shall be decreed in terms of the present compromise. In view of the decree in terms of the Memo of Compromise the Plaintiffs have given up the relief contained in prayer a, b, c, d & e in para 24 of the suit including cost of the suit.
9. It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to decree the above suit in terms of
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
the Memo of Compromise and pass such further or other order, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice." 3. Therefore, the suit is decreed in terms of the Memorandum of Compromise, which shall form part of the decree. No costs.