MRF LIMITED Vs. P ANNADURAI PROPRIETOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, its distributors, stockists, servants, agents, retailers, representatives or any other person claiming under/through them from in any manner

(2.) Brief facts of the case of the plaintiff is as follows:-

(3.) The defendant vide his application dated 27.9.1997, was appointed as exclusive dealer of the plaintiff, vide plaintiff's letter dated 17.02.1998. Pursuant to being appointed as a dealer of the plaintiff, the defendant commenced the use of the plaintiffs dealer glow sign board and other publicity materials containing the trademarks MRF, MRF Connected Letter Device and MRF Muscleman Device provided by the plaintiff, in respect of his business. The defendant initially satisfied the conditions and performance required of a dealer. However, after some time he was not able to get along with the plaintiff's personnel and policies. Therefore, the plaintiff finally terminated the defendant's dealership in terms of the agreement by issuing a 30 days termination notice dated 03.01.2012. The defendant also sent a reply dated 01.02.2012 with false allegations and the same is also properly replied by the plaintiff. On 06.02.2012 the plaintiff deputed one of his representatives to handover two cheques for a total amount of Rs.67,178.31 due and payable to the defendant under the dealership, and to collect the items/ materials such as glow sign boards, blowups etc., as per the terms specifically agreed to by the defendant at the time of grant of the dealership. However, the same was refused by the defendant, the plaintiff issued a letter dated 17.03.2012 enclosing the above mentioned two cheques to the defendant and requested for return of all plaintiff's materials. However, the defendant did not accept the letter dated 17.03.2012 and also the letter of termination dated 06.02.2012 informing that since the defendant was no longer associated with the plaintiff and consequently, the defendant would not use of the any of the trademarks of the plaintiff MRF or artistic work. In July 2012, the plaintiff learnt that the defendant was continuing to use the plaintiff's MRF Corporate Trademarks/Artistic works and MRF Dealer Board, in connection with his business. Hence, the plaintiff issued a desist notice dated 26.07.2012 which was replied by the defendant on 11.08.2012 and also on 14.09.2012. Despite the desist notice issued by the plaintiff, the defendant is still carrying on business as if the dealer of the plaintiff even after termination of the dealership. Hence the suit.