w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Prosound Products Partnership Firm, Rep. by its Partner Pradeep Ahuja & Another v/s John Enterprises, Chennai

    O.S.A. Nos. 86 to 88 of 2020

    Decided On, 27 February 2020

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

    For the Appellants: M.S. Bharath, Advocate. For the Respondent: L. Maithili, Advocate.



Judgment Text


(Prayer: Appeals filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent read with Order XXXVI Rule 9 of O.S. Rules against the order dated 10.02.2020 in O.A.Nos.845 & 846 of 2019 & A.No.8052 of 2019 filed in C.S.(Commn Div) No.542 of 2019 on the file of this Court.)

Common Judgment

M.M. Sundresh, J.

1. These appeals have been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge in dismissing the applications filed for injunction and allowing the vacate injunction petition primarily on the premise that the appellants, being aware of the dispute between M/s. Ningbo Soundking Group Co.Ltd and themselves, have not placed the relevant facts.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that neither M/s. Ningbo Soundking Group Co.Ltd nor M/s.Nippon Enterprises South are necessary parties to decide the lis between the appellants and the respondent/defendant. The respondent/defendant has not proved the fact the it is a dealer of M/s. Nippon Enterprises South, which, in turn, is the dealer of M/s. Ningbo Soundking Group Co.Ltd.

3. The learned counsel further submitted that without prejudice to the aforesaid contention, liberty may be given in the event of this Court not agreeing with them to file a fresh application after impleading the other two parties and in that case, all the issues may be left open.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant submitted that it is the appellants who filed opposition to the Trademark Application. The rectification application filed by M/s. Ningbo Soundking Group Co.Ltd., has also been opposed by the appellants. The respondent is nothing but a distributor and agent of M/s. Ningbo Soundking Group Co.Ltd.

5. By way of reply, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that there is no material to substantiate the fact that the respondent/defendant was only an agent and distributor of M/s. Ningbo Soundking Group Co.Ltd. through M/s. Nippon Enterprises South.

6. By way of clarification, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant submitted that what the respondent/defendant does is merely selling the product of M/s. Ningbo Soundking Group Co.Ltd., which steps into the shoes of the erstwhile concern, namely, STUDIOMASTER, on giving the share transfer in its favour.

7. Considering the above said submission, we are of the view that the adjudication can only be made by impleading the two entities referred above.

8. The learned Single Judge dismissed the injunction applications primarily on the premise that the appellants notably did not bring it to the notice of the Court the aforesaid facts, which might warrant the impleadment of the said entities as party defendants.

9. In such view of the matter, we set aside the finding rendered by the learned Single Judge and remit the matter for fresh consideration by giving liberty to the appellants with the direction that the appellants will have to imp

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

lead these two entities. After impleading is ordered, the injunction applications will have to be decided afresh leaving open all the issues both on facts and law. 10. The Original Side Appeals stand disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P.Nos.4528, 4530, 4534, 3524, 3526 and 3521 of 2020 are closed.
O R