Back
C. HARI SHANKAR
Dabur India Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Registrar of Trade Marks Trade Marks Registry – Respondent
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 opposi
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.
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
