IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
PT Djarum – Appellant
Versus
Bajrang Traders & Anr. – Respondents
CS (COMM) 593 of 2022 & I.A. 13715 of 2022
Decided On : 25-04-2023
Settlement Agreement - Trademark Dispute - Not Applicable - The court found that the settlement agreement between the parties was lawful and decreed the suit in terms of the settlement agreement.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute between the parties was settled with the intervention of the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. A settlement agreement was reached, and the court found the terms of settlement to be lawful, decreeing the suit in terms of the settlement agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the settlement agreement was lawful 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 lawfulness of the settlement agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lawfulness of the settlement agreement and the absence of any remaining dispute for adjudication.
Final Decision: The suit was decreed in terms of the settlement agreement, and the parties were bound by the terms and conditions contained therein.
ORDER (Oral)
1. The dispute between the parties stands settled with the intervention of the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
2. A report from the Mediation and Conciliation Centre along with Settlement Agreement dated 6th April 2023 has been received. The terms of settlement read thus:
"A. The Second Party acknowledges that the First Party is the registered proprietor of the well-known DJARUM BLACK Trademarks as well as the DJARUM BLACK Logo.
B. The Second Party has, in recognition of the First Party's rights in the DJARUM BLACK Trademarks, ceased all use of the trade marks [IMG], and [IMG] and undertakes to not use, directly or indirectly, the said marks and/or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the First Party's DJARUM BLACK Trademarks and/or the DJARUM BLACK Logo in future and/or directly or indirectly make any trade mark or copyright application in future in relation to any mark which is identical or deceptively similar to the First Party's DJARUM BLACK Trademarks and/or the DJARUM BLACK Logo.
C. The Second Party undertakes and warrants that no other person or party is using the trade marks [IMG], [IMG] and [IMG] or similar copyright logo for/on behalf of under permission of the Second Party.
D. The Second Party has disclosed the stock of products bearing the trade marks [IMG], [IMG] and [IMG] as on February 23, 2023 to the First Party. A detailed inventory of the stock of products bearing the aforementioned trademarks as on February 15, 2023 has been annexed hereto as ANNEXURE 'B'.
E. The Second Party has agreed to destroy all the stock as disclosed in Annexure B and available in their possession, in the presence of the authorized representative appointed on behalf of the First Party, within ten (10) days of signing this Agreement on such date, time and venue as mutually agreed between the Parties and disclosed by the Second Party to the First Party. The representative of the First Party may record a video of such destruction of stock for his record.
F. The Second Party confirms that it will within 15 (fifteen) days of signing the present Agreement make a public apology in the format enclosed as Annexure C in English and Hindi languages, in the following daily newspapers (i) Times of India and (ii) Navbharat Times, having national circulation. Copies of the public apology made by the Second Party in the aforementioned newspapers shall be forwarded to the legal representatives of the First Party within a maximum of two (2) from date of publication thereof.
G. The Second Party confirms that it has already filed requests for withdrawal of the following trademarks bearing application numbers (i) 4756806 in class 34 for the mark [IMG], (ii) 5088002 in class 34 for the mark [IMG] (iii) 5051527 in class 34 for the mark [IMG] and (iv) 5088000 in class 34 for the mark [IMG]. The respective order of withdrawal/withdrawal requests for the aforementioned trade mark applications have been annexed hereto as ANNEXURE `D'.
H. The Second Party further confirms that it has filed cancellation request for its copyright registration number 24548/2021-CO/A. A copy of the cancellation request/statement made to that effect to the Registrar of Copyright has been annexed hereto as ANNEXURE 'E'. The Second Party further confirms that it shall not in future, either directly or indirectly, apply for a copyright application in relation to any label/artistic work which is identical or substantially similar to the First Party's artistic work,
I. The Second Party confirms that it shall not oppose or apply for cancellation of the First Party's DJARUM BLACK Trademarks or the DJARUM BLACK Logo at any point in time.
J. The Second Party undertakes to not use in future the First Party's DJARUM BLACK Trademarks, the DJARUM BLACK Logo, the word "BLACK" or any other trade mark which is confusingly similar thereto in any manner, including but not limited to as a word mark, logo/device mark, domain name, company name, on social
Enforceability of settlement agreements in resolving disputes.
The court's decision was based on the validity and acceptance of the settlement agreement by the parties involved.
Enforcement of Settlement Agreement
The settlement agreement reached through mediation was found to be lawful and in order, leading to the decree of the suit in terms of the settlement agreement.
Settlement agreements can effectively resolve disputes and render legal proceedings unnecessary for adjudication.
Settlement agreements can effectively resolve disputes in trademark infringement cases, allowing parties to acknowledge rights and agree on actions to prevent future violations.
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 upheld the settlement agreement and decreed the suit in terms of the agreement, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the terms of the settlement in resolving the trademark infringement....
Settlement agreements under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC can lead to the decree of suits and resolution of disputes, binding the parties to the terms of the agreement.
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.