IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Aprica Healthcare Limited & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Skysun Lifesciences Private Limited & Anr. – Respondents
CS(COMM) 753 of 2022
Decided On : 05-04-2023
Settlement Agreement - Trademark Dispute - The court settled the dispute between the parties through a Settlement Agreement, acknowledging the plaintiff's rights in the marks and prohibiting the defendants from using any mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's marks on pharmaceutical or medicinal products.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute between the parties was settled through a Settlement Agreement, acknowledging the plaintiff's rights in the marks and prohibiting the defendants from using any mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's marks on pharmaceutical or medicinal products.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the parties had amicably settled their dispute without delving into the merits of the case, and decreed the suit in terms of the settlement agreement.
Issues: The main issue was the settlement of the dispute between the parties and the entitlement to refund of court fees by the plaintiff.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the settlement agreement reached by the parties, acknowledging the plaintiff's rights in the marks and prohibiting the defendants from using any mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's marks on pharmaceutical or medicinal products.
Final Decision: The suit was decreed in terms of the settlement agreement, and the plaintiff was entitled to a refund of court fees, if any.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. The dispute between the parties stands settled with the intervention of the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
2. The Settlement Agreement dated 13th March 2023 has been placed on record.
3. The terms of settlement read thus:
"6. The Parties in the present suit have amicably settled their dispute without delving into the merits of the present case. The settlement terms agreed between the parties are as follows:
(a) This settlement agreement binds Defendants 1 and 2, their successors and/or subsequent assignees, or any entity or concern in which the said Defendants hold a majority of shares or that is otherwise under the control of the Defendants and/or the directors of the said Defendants in their individual and personal capacities.
(b) Defendants acknowledge the Plaintiffs' right, title and interest in the marks "ROSIFLEX", and variations of the mark "ROSIFLEX", such as ROSIFLEX-C, ROSYFLEX TRIO, COROSIFLEX etc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Plaintiffs Marks")
(c) Defendant no. 1 states that it was, in conjunction with Defendant no. 2, manufacturing, exporting, distributing and supplying the tablets and capsules, under the mark ROSYFLEX hereinafter referred to as "Impugned Mark"). The said Defendants further acknowledge that the Impugned Mark is nearly identical to the Plaintiffs' Marks.
(d) Defendants undertake that they have ceased, directly or indirectly, all use, marketing, manufacturing, and selling of the Impugned Mark as of the date of this settlement agreement, in any manner or form.
(e) Defendants undertake that they will never, directly or indirectly, in the future, use the Impugned Mark, the Plaintiffs Marks and/or any mark identical with or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs Marks on and in relation to any pharmaceutical or medicinal products. The term 'use' includes, but is not limited to, use on and in relation to tablets, capsules and/or any other pharmaceutical or medicinal products, on promotional and advertising material, on the Defendants' personal website, social media platforms, or its listings on third-party business listing websites and e-pharmacies.
(f) Defendants state that they have not filed or obtained registrations for, and undertakes that it will not, whether directly or indirectly, at any future time, file, any trademark/copyright application(s) to register the Impugned Mark, the Plaintiffs' Marks or any mark identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs' Marks on or in relation to any goods or services, including, but not limited to, pharmaceutical or medicinal products and related goods and services.
(g) Defendants will never, now, or in the future, challenge, or take any action against, the Plaintiffs' rights in the Plaintiffs' Marks or any mark that the Plaintiffs may create or adopt in the future.
(h) Defendants will not hold itself as being related to the Plaintiffs in any way.
(i) Defendants will not, whether, directly or indirectly, cause, enable or assist another party to do any of the acts that it is undertaking not to do.
(j) The Plaintiffs and the Defendants agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of this present Settlement Agreement and further undertake that they shall neither challenge nor violate the terms and conditions of this Settlement Agreement.
(k) The Plaintiffs and the Defendants agree that a decree may be passed by the Hon'ble Court in terms of this present Settlement Agreement. The parties understand that in case the decree so passed by the Hon'ble Court is not complied with or any default is committed by either of the parties, the other party shall be at liberty to execute the said decree against such defaulting party in the court of law.
(l) In view of the aforesaid undertakings by the Defendants, the Plaintiffs forego their relief seeking damages and costs.
(m) The Hon'ble Court may consider refund of the court fees to the Plaintiffs' counsel in terms of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 read with Section 89
Settlement agreements can be used to resolve disputes without delving into the merits of the case, and the court may decree the suit in terms of the settlement agreement.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding nature of a settlement agreement reached between parties, which can lead to the court decreeing the suit in terms of the settlement and....
Enforceability of settlement agreements and their impact on the resolution of disputes.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the effectiveness of a settlement agreement in resolving a trademark infringement dispute and leading to a decree in favor of the aggrieved part....
Settlement agreements reached through mediation can be decreed by the court, and parties are bound by the terms of the agreement, with defaulting parties being held liable for contempt of court.
Settlement agreements can effectively resolve disputes in trademark infringement cases, allowing parties to acknowledge rights and agree on actions to prevent future violations.
The court's approval of the settlement agreement and the subsequent decree based on the terms of the agreement.
The court upheld the settlement reached under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC, recognizing the plaintiff's rights and binding the parties to the agreed terms.
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.