VIBHU BAKHRU, J.

Introduction

1. This is an action for infringement and passing off in respect of the plaintiffs” trademark “REYNOLDS” and other sub-trademarks used in conjunction with or in association with the trademark REYNOLDS (hereafter the “RENYOLDS Trademarks”). The plaintiffs, inter alia, claim that the use of the trademark “RORITO” by the defendant in respect of writing instruments manufactured by it constitutes passing off. They allege that the defendant has represented the trademark “RORITO” as the changed name of the trademark “REYNOLDS”.

2. The defendant was using the trademark “REYNOLDS” in respect of writing instruments and other stationery products manufactured by it, since 1986, pursuant to a licence granted to it. Last such license was granted to the defendant in terms of the License Agreement dated 09.04.2010 (hereafter “the License Agreement”). The said license was terminable by the defendant by giving six months prior notice, which it did by a letter dated 01.09.2015. Accordingly, the License Agreement stood terminated with effect from 01.03.2016. Thereafter, the defendant adopted the trademark “RORITO” in respect of the writing instruments manufactured by it. However, the defendant continued to use some of the sub trademarks, which were previously used, in respect of different writing instruments, in conjunction with the trademark REYNOLDS.

3. The plaintiffs instituted this suit on 17.08.2016.

4. On 02.11.2016, Mr Sethi, the learned senior counsel appearing for the defendant submitted a proposal to address most of the issues raised in the plaint. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs sought time to examine the same. Subsequently, during the proceedings held before this Court on 17.11.2016, a consensus was arrived at between the parties with respect to some of the disputes raised by the plaintiffs and the said disputes were resolved in the terms that were recorded in the order passed on the said date. The relevant extract of the said order is reproduced below:-

“1. On 02.11.2016 Mr Sandeep Sethi, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defendant had submitted a proposal to address some of the disputes raised in the plaint. The parties have been able to arrive at a consensus on some of the contentious issues which are set out below:-

(i) The defendant has agreed to assign the trademarks as listed below and execute the assignment deeds within a period of two weeks from today:

S.No.	Mark
1	METALIX
2	Liquiglide
3	Artio
4	Flymate
5	Pro-fit
6	Fludo
7	Fastline

(ii) The defendant has already removed the signboards of REYNOLDS. The said name has also been removed from the defendant’s stationery. The defendant undertakes to ensure that the said brand/trademark would not be used by the defendant on any signboard or on any stationery hereafter.

(iii) The defendant shall also change the packaging of its products to ensure that the same are not deceptively similar to the packaging of the plaintiffs” products.

(iv) The defendant has also volunteered to issue a press statement to the effect that it is no longer associated with the plaintiffs. The defendant shall also issue advertisement in the newspapers to that effect.

(v) The defendant has also volunteered that it shall cease manufacturing of the products under the trademark REYNOLDS within a period of one week from today. The defendant has also agreed to refrain from using the following trademarks:

S.No.	Mark	S. No.	Mark
1.	T-MAX	2.	531
3.	JEFFY	4.	207
5.	CHAMP STAR	6.	Festive
7.	RACEMAX Gel II	8.	Trendy
9.	LIQUIFAST	10.	Dominator
11.