Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 21 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Applicant – Mohammed Usman Sait, S/o Haji Ebrahim Oosman Sait, Proprietor of Joonus Sait & Sons, registered office No.36 Rattan Bazaar Road, George Town, Chennai 600003. Respondent – Mohammed Saleem Sait, S/o Haji Ebrahim Oosman Sait, registered office at F‑37, 38, Dee Cee Tower, 2nd Avenue, Chinthamani, Anna Nagar East, Chennai‑6000102; alternatively at Ground Floor, Alsa Mall, Main Entrance, Complex, Red Cross Road, near Alsa Mall, Egmore, Chennai‑600008.
  • Applications: A No. 990 of 2026 (seeking direction to close and cease operations of all newly opened or extended outlets operating under the name "Joonus Sait" that were not disclosed in the respondent’s counter‑affidavit or were opened during the pendency of the suit, violating the status‑quo order). O.A. No. 170 of 2026 (original application for an interim injunction restraining the respondent from expanding, extending, opening, operating or continuing any business, outlet or store under the trade name "Joonus Sait" or any variation thereof until disposal of the suit).
  • Counsel: Applicant – Mr. Amit Sharma (learned counsel). Respondent – Ms. S. Suba Shiny (learned counsel).
  • Applicant’s Allegations: The respondent allegedly opened a fourth store in Alsa Mall opposite an existing store and another outlet in Anna Nagar to promote a kids’ winter‑wear collection, thereby violating the undertaking and the status‑quo order.
  • Respondent’s Defense: No new outlets were opened. The Alsa Mall premises were hired solely for stocking materials, not for sales. The Anna Nagar location is part of the existing store, using the same GST registration as the original outlet, merely bifurcated for exclusive kids and women winter products. The respondent claimed the applicant was filing successive applications to harass and force a settlement.
  • Court’s Reasoning: The court noted that earlier applications for interim relief had been disposed of, with the Division Bench directing the respondent to maintain the status‑quo and refrain from prosecuting the trademark registration pending suit disposal. A prima facie finding indicated that the Memorandum of Understanding did not grant the respondent a sole proprietorship over the trade name. The intra‑court appeal raised the same factual content already before the Division Bench, and the respondent’s statements regarding the Alsa Mall premises and Anna Nagar outlet were consistent with the counter‑affidavit. Consequently, the court concluded that there was no violation of the status‑quo order or the undertaking.

Final Outcome

  • The applications (A No. 990 of 2026 and O.A. 170 of 2026) are dismissed. No order as to costs is made.

Topics: Trademark Dispute, Injunction