Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Sujata Chaudhri – Appellant
Versus
Swarupa Ghosh – Respondent
CS(COMM) 732 of 2022 & I.A. 17155 of 2022
Decided On : 13-02-2023
Trademark Infringement - Intellectual Property - The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff based on the defendant's agreement to give up the impugned marks and adopt new logos, rendering the dispute moot. The plaintiff was also entitled to a refund of court fees.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a law firm specializing in intellectual property litigation, filed a complaint of trademark infringement and passing off against the defendant for using the plaintiff's registered trademark. The defendant agreed to give up the impugned marks and adopt new logos, rendering the dispute moot.
Finding of the Court:
The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff based on the defendant's agreement to cease using the impugned marks, making the dispute moot. The plaintiff was entitled to a refund of court fees.
Issues: Trademark infringement, passing off, agreement to cease use of impugned marks, refund of court fees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the defendant's agreement to give up the impugned marks and adopt new logos rendered the dispute moot, leading to the decree in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's entitlement to a refund of court fees was also recognized.
Final Decision: The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was entitled to a refund of court fees.
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 for the plaintiff submits that, in that view of the matter and keeping in fact that the litigation is between advocates, his client would not be pressing for costs and damages. However, he seeks refund of the court fees which were deposited by the plaintiff.
7. In view of the aforeaid, nothing survives for adjudiation in the suit.
8. The suit stands decreed in terms of the the statements made in Court today and the affidavit dated 16th November 2022 filed by the defendant.
9. Let a decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.
10. The plaintiff is also entitled to be refunded the court fees paid by it.
11. Miscellaneous application also stands disposed of.
12. Order to be uploaded on the website of this Court within 24 hours.
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
