M/S TEJA INDUSTRIES M/S.MONICA CHOPDA, MOB-9176372339,KARTIC RAJA(6469/ vs MOHAMMED SHAFFI A R — OA/532/2026

Case under Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 Section 1. Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: HCMA010217162026

Filing Number

OA/15949/2026

Filing Date

28-Jan-2026

Registration No

OA/532/2026

Registration Date

02-Jun-2026

Judge

Honourable Mr.Justice K.kumaresh Babu

Coram

Honourable Mr.Justice K.kumaresh Babu

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

COMMERCIAL SUITS ( 179 )

Sub-Category

Trade Marks ( 25 )

Judicial Branch

ORIGINALSECTION

Last updated 07-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 Section 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M/S TEJA INDUSTRIES M/S.MONICA CHOPDA, MOB-9176372339,KARTIC RAJA(6469/

  2. 2.,SRIPRADA PRABAKARAN.C,S.MANOJ(9337/

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MOHAMMED SHAFFI A R

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 05-Jun-2026

    Honourable Mr.Justice K.kumaresh BabuView PDF

    Case Summary: OA Nos. 532 and 533 of 2026 M/s Teja Industries obtained interim injunctions against Mohammed Shaffi A R restraining him from passing off or infringing the "HIDE CRAFT" trademark (registration nos. 2418320, 2418321, 2418322, 2418323) through identical or deceptively similar business names or logos. The court found balance of convenience favored the applicant, noting the respondent's application was abandoned and the applicant had used the mark for nearly a decade. Notice issued to respondent returnable in six weeks; case adjourned for six weeks. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 05-Jun-2026

    Motion Cases

    Honourable Mr.Justice K.kumaresh Babu

  4. 28-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. OA/532/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: OA Nos. 532 and 533 of 2026 M/s Teja Industries obtained interim injunctions against Mohammed Shaffi A R restraining him from passing off or infringing the "HIDE CRAFT" trademark (registration nos. 2418320, 2418321, 2418322, 2418323) through identical or deceptively similar business names or logos. The court found balance of convenience favored the applicant, noting the respondent's application was abandoned and the applicant had used the mark for nearly a decade. Notice issued to respondent returnable in six weeks; case adjourned for six weeks. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case