IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03.07.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY O.A.No.383 of 2025 in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.118 of 2022 R Nageswaran, S/o.K.P.Rajendran Proprietor, Kali Aerated Water Works (Karaikudi), 67, Taluk Office Road, Karaikudi 630 002. ... Applicant -vs- Ms Kalis Sparkling Water P Ltd Rep.by its Managing Director, Imperial Chaitanya, 6th Floor, Old Door No.509 and 510 and 510A, New Door No.612, 610 and 610 A, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. and another ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr.A.Swaminathan For Respondents : Mrs.G.Thilagavathi, Sr. Advocate for M/s.R.Gopinath ********** ORDER By this application, the first plaintiff seeks an interim injunction to restrain the respondents from manufacturing or selling inter alia aerated soft drinks, syrups and fruit juices bearing the trade marks Kali, Kalimark, Kali Kola, Bovonto, Frutang, TRIO, Club Soda, Solo, Captain or any other 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis deceptively similar trade mark within the areas specified in the schedule to the Judge's summons. 2. Earlier, the applicant endeavoured to file an application seeking similar relief by also arraying third parties as respondents. When the application was listed for maintainability, by order dated 10.12.2024, this Court rejected the application on the ground that relief cannot be prayed for against third parties and granting leave to the applicant to file a fresh suit against such third parties, if so intended. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the second respondent had entered into an agreement with Reliance Retail Limited. Although such agreement was terminated pursuant to the earlier application, he submits that Reliance Retail Limited has started selling goods bearing the above mentioned trade marks in areas allotted to the applicant, such as Karaikudi and Pudhukottai. He relies upon invoices dated 07.11.2024 and 12.11.2024 in this connection. Therefore, he contends that an interim injunction is warranted to prevent such sales in contravention of mutual agreement dated 12.03.1993. 4. In response, learned senior counsel for the respondents submits that 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the respondents have completely stopped supplying products bearing the relevant trade marks to Reliance Retail Limited for sale in areas allotted to the applicant. As regards the invoices referred to by learned counsel for the applicant, learned senior counsel submits that such supplies may have been made while the distribution agreement was in force and that these products have a shelf life of 3 to 4 months. On instructions, she submits that the respondents undertake that any supply made by the respondents to distributors would be on condition that the said distributors do not sell goods bearing these marks in areas allotted to the applicant. By recording this undertaking, this application is disposed of. 03.07.2025 (1/2) rna 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J rna O.A.No.383 of 2025 in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.118 of 2022 03.07.2025 (1/2) 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis