IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
Kunal Khandelwal - Appellant
Versus
Bennett, Coleman & Company Ltd. - Respondent
CS(COMM) 334/2020 & I.A. 7123/2020 with CS(COMM) 423/2020 & I.A. 9041/2020
Decided On : 13-07-2021
Settlement - Trademark Infringement - The court decreed the suit for permanent injunction and settlement between the parties was recorded in the joint application, leading to the withdrawal of the suit and refund of court fees.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark and passing off. The suit was decreed in terms of the settlement recorded in the joint application, leading to the withdrawal of the suit and refund of court fees.
Finding of the Court:
The court decreed the suit in terms of the settlement recorded in the joint application, leading to the withdrawal of the suit and refund of court fees.
Issues: Trademark infringement, passing off, settlement, withdrawal of suit, refund of court fees
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the settlement between the parties, which led to the withdrawal of the suit and refund of court fees.
Final Decision: The suit was decreed in terms of the settlement recorded in the joint application, leading to the withdrawal of the suit and refund of court fees.
JUDGMENT
(Oral)
The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.
I.A. No. 8222/2021 (u/O XXIII Rule 3 r/w Sec. 151 CPC) in CS(COMM) 423/2020
1. The present suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark, passing off, rendition of accounts of profits/damages, delivery up etc. restraining the defendants its partners, associates, assigns in business, licensees and or franchisees and any other person claiming right through it for use of trade mark ‘ZOOM STOCKS’ or any other identical or deceptively similar trade mark in respect of goods and services falling under class 9, 35, 41 and 42 in any manner including advertising, promoting through any platform including online platforms or by any other means or dealing in any manner directly or indirectly amounting to infringement of plaintiff’s registered trade mark, stands settled between the parties, which has led to filing of the joint application in hand, which is duly signed by Mr. Sanjay K. Agarwal, Authorized Signatory of plaintiff and Mr. Kunal Khandelwal, defendant in person as well as their respective counsels and is also accompanied by the affidavit of the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the terms of settlement are recorded in Paragraph No. 2(i) to 2(x) of the application and parties shall abide by the terms thereof.
3. For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed. The suit stands decreed in terms mentioned in Paragraph No. 2(i) to 2(x) of IA No. 8222/2021, which shall form part of the decree. Decree sheet be accordingly drawn.
4. The application is disposed of.
CS(COMM) 423/2020 & I.A. 9041/2020 (u/O 39 R 1 and 2 r/w Sec. 151 CPC)
5. For the reasons stated in IA No. 8222/2021, the suit of plaintiff is decreed in terms prescribed in Paragraph No. 2(i) to 2(x) of IA No. 8222/2021, which shall form part of the decree. Decree sheet be accordingly drawn.
6. With aforesaid directions, the present suit and pending application are accordingly disposed of.
CS(COMM) 334/2020 & I.A. 7123/2020 2020 (u/O 39 R 1 and 2 r/w Sec. 151 CPC)
7. The present suit seeking decree in favour of the plaintiff declaring that the threats issued by defendant vide impugned Notice dated 06.08.2020 groundless and illegal; plaintiff’s adoption and use of the words “Zoom Stocks” in any manner does not infringe the registered trade mark of defendant and does not amount to passing off and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant including their servants, agents, associates etc. from circulating threats or advertisement of any form of communication, including visual media and online platforms which may damage or cause harm to the reputation of plaintiff, has been amicably settled with defendant in terms prescribed in IA No. 8222/2021 in CS(COMM) 423/2020.
8. Learned counsel for the parties submit that in terms prescribed in Paragraph No. 2(i) to 2(x) of IA No. 8222/2021 in CS(COMM) 423/2020, this suit has to be withdrawn by the plaintiff.
9. At this stage, learned counsel for plaintiff seeks permission of the Court to withdraw the present suit and pending application.
10. Learned counsel for the parties pray for refund of court fees under the provisions of Section 16A of Court Fees (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2010 as the suit has been settled out of court ending in a decree before any evidence on the merits of the claim.
11. The Registry shall refund 50% of the Court fees under Section 16A of the Act to the parties.
12. Accordingly, the present suit and pending application are dismissed as withdrawn.
The court's decision was based on the settlement between the parties, which led to the withdrawal of the suit and refund of court fees.
The amicable settlement of trademark infringement disputes is recognized and enforced by the court, leading to dismissal of the case as withdrawn without evidence on merits.
The court's decision was influenced by the lawful terms of the settlement agreement and previous decisions, allowing for the refund of entire court fees.
Amicably settled - Suit for permanent injunction - Plaintiff is entitled to a certificate from this Court authorizing him to seek refund of entire court fees from authorities concerned in respect of ....
The court validated the settlement agreement between the parties and ruled for the full refund of court fees, reinforcing the principle that amicable resolution entitles a party to such refunds.
The court decreed the suit in terms of a valid and lawful Settlement Agreement mutually settled by the parties.
Settlement agreements reached through mediation are binding and enforceable, and parties are entitled to court fee refunds when disputes are amicably resolved.
Mutual settlement of disputes allows parties to withdraw claims under Order XXIII Rule 3, leading to court decreeing the suit based on agreed terms.
The court confirmed the validity of a mediated Settlement Agreement resolving trademark infringement, establishing entitlement to court fee refund under precedent cases.
Mediation successfully resolves trademark infringement disputes, enabling court fee refunds under the Court Fees Act and CPC.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.