T. Rajaram, Proprietor, R.S.Gold Beedi, Ventrilingapuram vs Nagoor Kani, Proprietor, No.1 R.S.Gold Beedi, Sankarankoil and another Advocate - Tr. Sureshkumar — 13/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O7,R1,sec-26. Disposed: Contested--Decreed without cost on 26th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTS010001002024
Filing Number
14/2024
Filing Date
02-Aug-2021
Registration No
13/2024
Registration Date
02-Aug-2021
Court
Principal District Court, Tenkasi
Judge
1-Principal District Judge
Decision Date
26-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Decreed without cost
Last updated 19-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.T. Rajaram, Proprietor, R.S.Gold Beedi, Ventrilingapuram
Adv. Tr.K.Thanga Durai
Respondent(s)
-
1.Nagoor Kani, Proprietor, No.1 R.S.Gold Beedi, Sankarankoil and another Advocate - Tr. Sureshkumar
-
2.Ibrahim Syed
Adv. Tr. Ananthakumar
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
26-Mar-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
-
26-Mar-2026
Copy of DecreeView PDF
Summary: Case 13/2024 - T. Rajaram v. Nagoor Kani & Another The court granted a partial decree in this trademark/passing-off case involving beedi (hand-rolled cigarette) products. The plaintiff successfully obtained a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the trade name "No.1 R.S. Gold Beedi" or any deceptively similar mark, label, colour scheme, or packaging to the plaintiff's "R.S. Gold Beedi" brand. However, the court dismissed the plaintiff's request for mandatory injunction requiring surrender of unsold goods and printing materials. The defendants were ordered to pay Rs. 310 in costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
26-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal District Judge
-
18-Mar-2026
Judgement
Principal District Judge
-
06-Mar-2026
Judgement
Principal District Judge
-
26-Feb-2026
Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
16-Feb-2026
Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
07-Feb-2026
Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
29-Jan-2026
Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
21-Jan-2026
Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
19-Dec-2025
Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
15-Dec-2025
Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
28-Nov-2025
Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
20-Nov-2025
Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
10-Nov-2025
Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
30-Oct-2025
Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
25-Oct-2025
Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
22-Oct-2025
Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
15-Oct-2025
Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
26-Sep-2025
Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
16-Sep-2025
Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
09-Sep-2025
Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
02-Sep-2025
Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
25-Aug-2025
Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
21-Aug-2025
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
21-Aug-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
18-Aug-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
14-Aug-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
12-Aug-2025
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
12-Aug-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
05-Aug-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
31-Jul-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
22-Jul-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
15-Jul-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
03-Jul-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
23-Jun-2025
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
23-Jun-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
18-Jun-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
16-Jun-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
11-Jun-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
09-Jun-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
05-Jun-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
03-Jun-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
26-Apr-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
23-Apr-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
21-Apr-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
16-Apr-2025
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
16-Apr-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
04-Apr-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
28-Mar-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
24-Mar-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
17-Mar-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
11-Mar-2025
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
11-Mar-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
03-Mar-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
25-Feb-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
20-Feb-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
13-Feb-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
05-Feb-2025
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
05-Feb-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
22-Jan-2025
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
22-Jan-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
07-Jan-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
17-Dec-2024
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
10-Dec-2024
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
04-Dec-2024
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
04-Dec-2024
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
02-Dec-2024
Ex-Parte Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
25-Nov-2024
Ex-Parte Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
15-Nov-2024
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
08-Nov-2024
Ex-Parte Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
28-Oct-2024
Ex-Parte Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
21-Sep-2024
Appearance
Principal District Judge
-
02-Sep-2024
Appearance
Principal District Judge
-
02-Sep-2024
Restored
Principal District Judge
-
02-Sep-2024
Appearance
Principal District Judge
-
11-Jun-2024
Disposed
Principal District Judge
-
04-Jun-2024
Steps
Principal District Judge
-
23-Apr-2024
Steps
Principal District Judge
-
14-Mar-2024
Steps
Principal District Judge
-
29-Feb-2024
Issues
Principal District Judge
-
24-Jan-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
02-Aug-2021
Case filed
Registration No. 13/2024
Summary: Case 13/2024 - T. Rajaram v. Nagoor Kani & Another The court granted a partial decree in this trademark/passing-off case involving beedi (hand-rolled cigarette) products. The plaintiff successfully obtained a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the trade name "No.1 R.S. Gold Beedi" or any deceptively similar mark, label, colour scheme, or packaging to the plaintiff's "R.S. Gold Beedi" brand. However, the court dismissed the plaintiff's request for mandatory injunction requiring surrender of unsold goods and printing materials. The defendants were ordered to pay Rs. 310 in costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts