Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Gati Ltd. & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Kwe Gati Packers And Movers P. Ltd. – Respondent
CS(COMM) 187 of 2023, I.A. 6180 of 2023, I.A. 6181 of 2023, I.A. 6182 of 2023 & I.A. 6183 of 2023
Decided On : 12-04-2023
Trademark Infringement - Permanent Injunction - Change of Company Name
Fact of the Case:
The defendant handed over an affidavit undertaking not to use the plaintiff's trademark and to change the name of the defendant company. The plaintiff agreed not to press for costs and damages, and the suit was decreed accordingly.
Finding of the Court:
The dispute in the suit was resolved based on the defendant's undertaking. The court issued a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the trademark and ordered the defendant to change its company name. The plaintiff was not required to deposit any court fees.
Issues: Trademark infringement, change of company name, permanent injunction, costs and damages
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the defendant's undertaking not to use the plaintiff's trademark and to change the company name, leading to the resolution of the dispute and the decree of the suit.
Final Decision: The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant was restrained from using the trademark and ordered to change its company name. The plaintiff was not required to deposit any court fees.
ORDER (Oral)
C. Hari Shankar, J.
1. In terms of the undertaking given on the next date of hearing. Mr. Kapil Hooda, learned Counsel for the defendant has handed over, across the Bar, an affidavit of Mr. Ravinder, who is one of the Directors of the defendant company, undertaking not to use the trademark GATI/KWE GATI which are registered in favour of the plaintiff, and to change the name of the defendant company to Nishant Packers and Movers which would not infringe the plaintiff's registered marks in any manner.
2. Mr. Sachin Gupta, learned Counsel for the plaintiff submits, in the circumstances, that his client would not press for costs and damages and that the suit may be decreed.
3. As such, the plaint be registered as a suit.
4. In view of the aforesaid undertaking of Mr. Ravinder, as handed over across the Bar by Mr. Hooda, the dispute in the suit stands resolved. There shall be a permanent injunction restraining the defendant as well as all others acting on its behalf from using the trademark GATI/KWE GATI or any similar mark/logo which is deceptively similar to any of the registered trademarks of the plaintiff as enlisted in paras 7 and 8 of the plaint for any purpose whatsoever. The defendant shall also stand restrained from using GATI/KWE GATI as part of its tradename, corporate name, meta tag or in any advertisement or promotional material or any physical or virtual site.
5. The defendant shall also discontinue the use of the company name Kwe Gati Packers and Movers Pvt. Ltd. forthwith and shall apply within a week to the Registrar of Companies to change its name to Nishant Packers and Movers. The registrar of companies is directed to decide the said application within two weeks of its being filed by the defendant before the Registrar, so that the name of the defendant company is changed on the record of the Registrar of Companies.
6. As Mr. Gupta has fairly undertaken not to press for costs and damages, no further orders are required to be passed in this suit which shall stand decreed in the aforesaid terms.
7. Let a decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.
8. In view of the aforesaid, the plaintiff would not be required to deposit any Court fees.
9. The suit stands decreed accordingly.
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.
Trademark acknowledgment and the avoidance of misuse are crucial in trademark disputes; costs for unnecessary litigation may be imposed to deter vexatious claims.
Unauthorized use of a trademark without permission or authorization constitutes infringement and passing off, causing harm and injury to the trademark owner and the public.
Deliberate infringement, continuous insistence on persisting with infringing activity, and contumacious disobedience of the injunction order warrant punitive action and a permanent injunction.
Enforceability of settlement agreement under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC.
Court emphasizes the significance of written undertakings in trademark disputes and validates the necessity of compliance with contractual agreements before issuance of licenses.
Trademark compliance and adherence to injunction orders are critical for protecting trademark rights; failure to comply warrants corrective action and penalties.
Trademark infringement occurs when identical or confusingly similar marks serve identical services, creating potential consumer confusion.
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
