Back
C. HARI SHANKAR
Sujata Chaudhri – Appellant
Versus
Swarupa Ghosh – Respondent
ORDER (Oral)
1. The plaintiff is the proprietor of Sujata Chaudhri IP Attorneys, a law firm engaged primarily in intellectual property litigation. The plaintiff is also the proprietor of the following registered trademark:
[IMG]
2. The plaint complaints of infringement and passing off, by the defendant, of the plaintiff's registered trademark by using the impugned marks [IMG] and [IMG].
3. Consequent to issuance of summons, the defendant has filed an affidavit dated 16th November 2022, agreeing to give up the impugned marks [IMG] and [IMG] with effect from 1st January 2023, and, in their place, to adopt the logos [IMG] and [IMG].
4. Ms. Shahi submits that the aforeasid changes have already taken place and that, therefore, with effect from 1st January 2023, the defendant is no longer using the impugned marks.
5. She further submits that her client had intially filed an application for rectification and an opposition for removal of the plaintiff's mark from the Register of Trade Marks but that, consequent to withdrawal of the said applications, the plaintiff's mark is now being reflected as "registered" on the website of the Registry of Trademarks.
6. Mr. Mahant, learned Counsel
The court has the authority to examine and decree a suit based on the terms of settlement between the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC.
The court issued a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the plaintiff's trademark and ordered the defendant to change its company name based on the defendant's undertaking.
The court upheld the Defendant's commitment to withdraw contested trademarks, ruling that nominal sales negate the need for damages, granting a decree in favor of the Plaintiffs.
Trademark acknowledgment and the avoidance of misuse are crucial in trademark disputes; costs for unnecessary litigation may be imposed to deter vexatious claims.
The court confirmed the validity of a mediated Settlement Agreement resolving trademark infringement, establishing entitlement to court fee refund under precedent cases.
The court applied Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC to decree the suit in terms of the settlement reached between the parties.
Deliberate infringement, continuous insistence on persisting with infringing activity, and contumacious disobedience of the injunction order warrant punitive action and a permanent injunction.
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.
A court may dispose of a civil suit in terms of a lawful settlement agreement arrived at between the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, binding successors and assi....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
