Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 2860
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
HIMA KOHLI, J.
PFIZER PRODUCTS, INC. - Plaintiff
Versus
LIFELINE MEDICOS & ORS. - Defendants
CS(OS) 1218/2006
Decided On : 14.12.2015
Ms. Shilpa Gupta, Advocate
Ms. Simran Brar, Advocate with Mr. Varun Kumar, Ms. Saloni Choudhary and Ms. Deveshi Mishra, Advocates for D-2 to D-4.
The court can accept an out-of-court settlement between parties if it is found that the settlement was made without any undue influence or coercion.
Headnote:
Settlement Agreement - Intellectual Property - The court accepted the settlement agreement between the plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 4, where the defendants agreed to change their product mark and exhaust/sell the existing stock, leading to the decree of the suit in terms of the settlement.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 4 reached an out-of-court settlement regarding the use of the mark 'VIGORA' for their products.
Finding of the Court:
The court accepted the settlement agreement and decreed the suit in terms of the settlement, with each party bearing their own expenses.
Issues: Settlement agreement, change of product mark, exhaustion of existing stock, claim of damages
Ratio Decidendi: The court found no legal impediment in accepting the settlement as the parties had arrived at it of their own free will and volition, without any undue influence or coercion.
Final Decision: The application for settlement was allowed, and the suit was decreed in terms of the settlement, with each party bearing their own expenses.
1. At the outset, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the defendant No.1 has already been deleted from the array of the defendants in terms of the order dated 24.04.2009. The defendant No.2 is stated to be a marketing division of the defendant No.4 and not an independent entity.
2. The plaintiff and the defendants No.2 to 4 have arrived at an out of court settlement, whereunder the defendants No.2 to 4 have undertaken to change its mark, “VIGORA” to “VIGORE” in respect of their products w.e.f. 01.01.2016, as detailed in para 3 of the application. The defendants No.2 to 4 have also undertaken to exhaust/sell the stock of their product, “VIGORA” on or before 30.04.2016 or on the expiry of six months from today, whichever is earlier with a further undertaking to destroy the remaining inventory of its product bearing the brand “VIGORA”. The remaining undertakings given by the defendant No.2 to 4 have been set out in para 3(c) and (d) of the application.
3. Counsel for the plaintiff states that in view of the settlement arrived at with the defendants No.2 to 4, the plaintiff gives up the claim of damages against the said defendants.
4. The Court has perused the present application. The same has been signed by the constituted attorney of the plaintiff/company, the authorised representative of the defendant No.2, Director of the defendant No.3 and the authorised signatory of the defendant No.4 as also by their respective counsels. The application is supported by the affidavits of the signatories to the application and the authorizations issued in favour of the signatories, authorizzing them to sign the said application.
5. As counsels for the plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 4 jointly state that their clients have arrived at the aforesaid settlement of their own free will and volition and without any undue influence or coercion from any quarters, there appears no legal impediment in accepting the said settlement. The parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the settlement as recorded in the Settlement Agreement.
6. The application is allowed and the suit is decreed qua the defendants No.2 to 4 in terms of the settlement recorded therein while leaving the parties to bear their own expenses. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
7. The application is disposed of.
