Kailash Chand SuranaSole Proprietor of M/s.Kalptaru Enterprise v. Chagan Lal M

C.S(COMM DIV) No. 41 of 2026__________Page1 of 5IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 03-06-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABUC.S(COMM DIV) No. 41 of 2026andO.A.Nos.103 & 104 of 2026andA.No.681 of 2026 Kailash Chand SuranaSole Proprietor of M/s.Kalptaru Enterprise, No.07, Telegraph Abboy Street, Kondithope, Chennai 600 079..Plaintiff(s)VsChagan Lal M,Sole Proprietor of M/s.Balaji Innovation, No.420/2, 3rd Main Road, Near Mathikere Bus Stop, Mathikere, Bangalore, Karnataka-560 054..Respondent(s)Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules and Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C., and Sections 27,28,29,134,135 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, Section 7 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, praying to;-a) Grant a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, by itself, its proprietors, partners, men, servants, agents, distributors, stockists, representatives , assigns or anyone claiming through or under them, from in any manner infringing the plaintiff’s registered Trade Marks, including “NAKODA PROPLUS”, “PRO NAKODA”, by manufacturing, marketing, offering for sale, selling, distributing, displaying, advertising or otherwise dealing in metal hardware goods including fasteners, screws, nuts, bolts and allied goods under https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S(COMM DIV) No.

41 of 2026__________Page2 of 5the impugned marks/ labeling/ trading/style/ packaging/ trade dress “SRI NAKODA”/ “SNE NAKODA” or any other mark/labelling/trading style/packaging/trade dress which identical with or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s Registered Trade Marks.b) Grant a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, by itself, its proprietors, partners, men, servants, agents, distributors, stockists, representatives or anyone claiming through or under them, from in any manner passing off and/or enabling others to pass off the Defendant’s goods as and for those of the plaintiff by manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, distributing, advertising, or otherwise dealing in metal hardware goods under the mark “SRI NAKODA”/” SNE NAKODA”/NAKODA” or any other mark identical with or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s Trade Mark/labelling/trading style/packaging/trade dress under “SNE NAKODA”/” NAKODA PROPLUS”/ “PRO NAKODA”, including by imitation of packaging, trade dress, get-up, colour scheme, or overall presentation.c) Direct the Defendant to pay damages of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) to the Plaintiff for committing acts of infringement and passing off of the Plaintiff’s Trade Marks and for unlawfully exploiting the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff.d) Direct the Defendant to surrender to the Plaintiff, for destruction, all infringing goods, labels, cartons, packaging materials, blocks, dyes, moulds, screen prints, promotional materials, catalogues, visiting cards, advertisements, and any other materials bearing the impugned marks “SRI NAKODA”/” SNE NAKODA” or any mark deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s Trade Marks “NAKODA PROPLUS”, “PRO NAKODA” and/or “SNE NAKODA”. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S(COMM DIV) No.

41 of 2026__________Page3 of 5e) Pass a preliminary decree for rendition of accounts directing the Defendant to render a true and faithful account of profits earned by use of the Plaintiff’s Trade Marks, and upon such accounts being taken, pass a final decree in favour of the Plaintiff for the amount of profits found to have been made by the Defendant.f) Award the costs of the suit to the Plaintiff; and g) Pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice. For Plaintiff(s):Mr.A.Jayesh Kumar DagaFor Respondent(s):Mr.R.Dilli KumarFor Mr.R.RajarajanJUDGMENTWhen the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing on either side would submit in unison that the parties to the suit have settled the dispute among themselves and to that effect, have also filed a Joint Memorandum of Compromise signed by both the plaintiff and the defendant. The same has also been acknowledged by the respective learned counsel appearing for the parties.

Registry, High Court of Madras, is directed to grant necessary refund of Court fee as applicable in the name of the plaintiff.03-06-2026Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/Nokak https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S(COMM DIV) No. 41 of 2026__________Page5 of 5K.KUMARESH BABU, J.kakC.S(COMM DIV) No. 41 of 202603-06-2026