IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Dabur India Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
The Registrar of Trade Marks Trade Marks Registry & Anr. – Respondents
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 734 of 2022 & I.A. 14193 of 2022 C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 738 of 2022 & I.A. 14806 of 2022 C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 739 of 2022 & I.A. 14808 of 2022 C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 744 of 2022 & I.A. 15223 of 2022 and CS(COMM) 18 of 2022 & I.A. 15389 of 2022
Decided On : 12-04-2023
Settlement Agreement - Trademark Dispute - The court found the terms of settlement to be lawful and binding on the parties, leading to the disposal and decree of the cases.
Fact of the Case:
The disputes were settled through mediation, and a settlement agreement dated 14th March 2023 was presented to the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the terms of settlement to be lawful and binding on the parties, leading to the disposal and decree of the cases.
Issues: The issues regarding the trademark disputes and rectification petitions were settled through the presented settlement agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lawful nature of the settlement agreement and the parties' undertaking to remain bound by its terms.
Final Decision: The court decreed the settlement agreement, leading to the disposal of the cases and entitlement to refund of court fees for the parties.
ORDER (Oral)
C. Hari Shankar, J.
1. The disputes in these cases stand settled with the intervention of Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
2. Settlement agreement dated 14th March 2023 is on record.
3. The terms of settlement read thus:
"a) That the First Party agrees not to challenge the use of the Second Party's Dabur Baby Super Pants label [IMG] bearing Trademark Application No. 4906240 and get- up/design [IMG]. The Second Party's Trade Marks and get up/design are annexed hereto as Annexure D.
b) That the Second Party shall withdraw the four rectification petitions being C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 734/2022, C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 738/2022, C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 739/2022 and C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 744/2022;
c) That the Second Party acknowledges the ownership and use of the First Party's Trade Marks by the First Party and agrees not to challenge (itself or through its associates and third-parties) the First Party's use of the First Party's Trade Marks already attached as Annexure C- or any other trademark which the First Party uses or is the proprietor of in future only on the ground that it contains the word 'Super';
d) That the parties agree that they shall not file trade mark oppositions/cancellations or any other like proceedings against each other in respect of trade marks bearing the term 'SUPER' anywhere in the world including in India in the future except where either of the party claims exclusivity over the term 'SUPER'.
e) That the Parties agree that nothing in this Agreement shall preclude the Parties from proceeding against any third parties that may be seen to infringe/ pass off the trademarks of the Parties.
f) That the Parties agree that nothing in this Agreement shall preclude either Party from filing Trademark Applications in classes 3, 5, 29, 30, and 32 (as per the Fourth Schedule to Trade Marks Rules, 2002) containing the word 'SUPER' without claiming exclusivity on the word SUPER per se. For the other classes enumerated in the Fourth Schedule to Trade Marks Rules, 2002, nothing in this Agreement shall preclude either Party from filing Trademark Applications containing the word 'SUPER'.
g) That the First Party shall withdraw the Suit CS (COMM) No. 18 of 2022 pending adjudication before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi;
h) In view of the above settlement terms arrived between the parties, the First Party does not wish to press for its claim of costs, damages, rendition of accounts and delivery up against the Second Party. Similarly, the Second Party shall not press for costs against the First Party.
i) The abovementioned settlement terms shall be binding on both the Parties and their respective directors, agents, exclusive distributors, legal heirs, associates, sister concerns, anyone claiming through the Second Party's servants, franchisee, assigns in business, stockiest and successor-in-interest, for all times to come.
j) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dispose of suit no CS (Comm) No 18 of 2022 as well as rectification Nos. C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 734/2022, C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 738/2022, C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 739/2022 and C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 744/2022 as withdrawn, in view of the present settlement agreement.
k) That the Parties undertake to the Hon'ble Court to abide by the terms and conditions set out in the agreement and not to dispute the same hereinafter in future."
4. The Court has perused the terms of settlement and find them to be lawful.
5. Learned Counsel for the parties are present. Ms. Kaur for M/s South Healthcare in CS (Comm) 18/2022 is also present in person.
6. Counsel and the parties undertake to remain bound by the aforesaid terms of settlement.
7. As such, nothing survives for adjudication in these cases.
8. C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 734, 738, 739 & 744/2022 stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid settlement.
9. CS (Comm) 18/2022 also stands decreed in terms of the aforesaid settlement, by which the parties shall remain bound.
10. Let the Registry draw up a decree sheet accordingly.
11. The plaintif
The settlement agreement was found to be lawful and binding, leading to the disposal of the trademark disputes.
Enforceability of settlement agreements and their impact on the resolution of disputes.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the approval and enforcement of a Settlement Agreement to resolve trademark infringement disputes.
The court's decision was based on the validity and acceptance of the settlement agreement by the parties involved.
The court upheld settlement agreements acknowledging the plaintiff's exclusive rights to the trademark, prohibiting the defendants from using similar marks, and reaffirming the binding nature of such....
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.
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.