The court upheld the validity of the Settlement Agreement and allowed the refund of entire court fees in accordance with Section 16 of the Court Fees Act.

JUDGMENT

(Oral)

1. Plaintiff has preferred the present suit under Section 26 and Order VII Rule 1 CPC as well as under Sections 27 to 29, 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking permanent injunction from infringement/ unauthorized use of trade name /trade mark/ trade dress/copy right/passing of/dilution and damages/rendition of accounts of profit against the defendant.

2. Plaintiff claims to be in the business of production and sale of energy drinks and beverages under the brand name “HELL ENERGY” and having obtained registration in respect of trade mark for the goods “beer; mineral and aerated waters; other non-alcoholic beverages; fruit drinks and fruit juices; syrups and other preparations for making beverages”, in Hungary and other countries. Plaintiff claims to have obtained amassed an enviable position in the industry all over the world. Plaintiff had filed an application for opposition against application of defendant seeking registration of trade mark ‘Hellxxx’ in Class 32 before the Registrar of Trade Marks, Delhi and approached this Court submitting that defendant has no legitimate right to use the mark “HELL” with or without the suffix “xxx” or any other trade mark which is identical/ deceptively or confusingly similar to that of the plaintiff.

3. During pendency of the present suit, vide order dated 06.07.2021, at the request of counsel for defendant, the matter was referred to Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre for parties to explore settlement of disputes.

4. Today, learned counsel appearing from both the sides submit that the subject matter of this suit has been amicably resolved through mediation and parties have finally resolved their disputes in terms of Settlement-Agreement dated 21.09.2021.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the present suit be decreed in terms mentioned in the aforesaid Settlement-Agreement dated 21.09.2021. Learned counsel also prays for refund of full court fees in terms of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act and submits that in terms of Clause-10 of the aforesaid Agreement, the court fee be refunded in favour of plaintiff’s counsel.

6. This Court has gone through the Mediation report dated 21.09.2021 placed on record and find it to be valid and lawful. The present suit is accordingly decreed in terms mentioned in Settlement-Agreement dated 21.09.2021, which shall form part of the decree.

7. A Division Bench of this Court in Nutan Batra Vs. M/s. Buniyaad Associates 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12916, relying upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited, (2010) 8 SCC 24 , had allowed an appeal against the order of refusal of refund of entire court fee in a suit. Further, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Munish Kalra Vs. Kiran Madan and Others 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8021 taking into account the fact that the dispute stands amicably settled between the parties, had relied upon decisions in Afcons Infrastructure Limited (Supra) and Nutan Batra (Supra) and directed refund of the entire court fees.

8. Concurring with afore-noted decisions, the plaintiff is entitled to refund of entire court fees. Registry is directed to issue necessary certificate/ authorization in favour of the plaintiff’s counsel to seek refund before the appropriate authorities.

9. With aforesaid directions, the present suit stands decreed accordingly.

Pending applications are disposed of as infructuous.