M/s. SPG Ramasamy Nadar and Sons Rep by Mr. R.N.Ashokkumar, Virudhunagar vs M/s. South Indian Green Cardamon Com.Ltd, Theni — 1/2022
Case under Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 27(b),22,35(1),24(1)(b). Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 23rd March 2026.
COS - Commercial Original Suit
CNR: TNVR010009962022
Next Hearing
23rd March 2026
Filing Number
364/2022
Filing Date
21-03-2022
Registration No
1/2022
Registration Date
21-03-2022
Court
Principal District Court, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
M/s. SPG Ramasamy Nadar and Sons Rep by Mr. R.N.Ashokkumar, Virudhunagar
Adv. Yedhindrn
Respondent(s)
M/s. South Indian Green Cardamon Com.Ltd, Theni
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 06-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 25-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 19-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 11-02-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Case No.: C.O.S. No. 1/2022 | Date: 04.02.2026 | Court: Srivilliputhur District Court Outcome: The petition is dismissed. The court ruled that the "Bargana" trademark belongs exclusively to the second defendant, who has been using it since 1996 in Arab countries and registered it in 2004. The plaintiff's claim that the trademark was developed by the company and later authorized to the second defendant through a supply agreement dated 11.05.2016 was rejected. The court found no merit in the plaintiff's contentions regarding trademark ownership and dismissed the cross-examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Case No.: C.O.S. No. 1/2022 | Date: 04.02.2026 | Court: Srivilliputhur District Court Outcome: The petition is dismissed. The court ruled that the "Bargana" trademark belongs exclusively to the second defendant, who has been using it since 1996 in Arab countries and registered it in 2004. The plaintiff's claim that the trademark was developed by the company and later authorized to the second defendant through a supply agreement dated 11.05.2016 was rejected. The court found no merit in the plaintiff's contentions regarding trademark ownership and dismissed the cross-examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts