Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Aeronutrix Sports Products Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Plumax Ebusiness Solutions Private Limited & Ors. – Respondents
CS(COMM) 627 of 2022 & I.A. 14788 of 2022, I.A. 14789 of 2022
Decided On : 06-07-2023
Settlement Agreement - Trademark Infringement - The court approved a Settlement Agreement between the parties, acknowledging the rights of the First Party in certain sub-brands and trademarks, and outlining the terms of settlement including payment of damages and withdrawal of trademark applications.
Fact of the Case:
The parties reached a Settlement Agreement under the aegis of the Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre, acknowledging the rights of the First Party in certain sub-brands and trademarks, and agreeing to settle all disputes amicably.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found the terms of settlement to be lawful and in order, and accordingly decreed the suit in terms of the settlement. The parties were directed to abide by the terms of settlement, and a decree-sheet was to be drawn up accordingly. The plaintiff would be entitled to a refund of court fees, if any, deposited by it.
Issues: The main issue was the settlement of disputes between the parties regarding trademark infringement and related claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the approval of the Settlement Agreement, which effectively resolved all disputes between the parties and rendered further adjudication unnecessary.
Final Decision: The suit was decreed in terms of the approved Settlement Agreement, and the parties were directed to abide by the terms of settlement. A decree-sheet was to be drawn up accordingly, and the plaintiff would be entitled to a refund of court fees, if any, deposited by it.
ORDER (Oral)
1. The dispute between the parties stands settled.
2. The Settlement Agreement dated 18 April 2023, drawn up under the aegis of the Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre, has been placed on record.
3. The terms of settlement read thus:
"1. That the Second Party accepts and acknowledges the rights of the First Party in the sub-brands CHARGE, FORTIFY, RELOAD and VITALIZE along with the corresponding label marks as mentioned in the suit and, admits the validity of the First Party's marks."
2. The Second Party agrees and acknowledges the rights of the First Party in the sub-brands CHARGE, FORTIFY, RELOAD and VITALIZE (referred to as "FAST&UP DERIVATIVES") the corresponding trade dress and colour scheme of the labels (referred to as "FAST&UP LABELS"). The second party further agrees not to adopt a trade dress/colour scheme for its products which is identical or deceptively similar to the trade dress and/or colour scheme of the products and/or labels of the First Party.
3. That the Second Party agrees and undertakes not to manufacture and/or sell goods under the sub-brands referred to as FAST&UP DERIVATIVES or any other mark(s) which is identical, and/or similar to the trademarks of the First Party including but not limited to the marks referred to as FAST&UP LABELS.
4. That the Second Party also agrees and undertakes to withdraw the Opposition filed by the Second Party against the First Party's prior adopted trademark FAST&UP CHARGE (label) bearing application no. 4761652.
5. That the Second Party further agrees and undertakes to withdraw the trademark application filed by the Second Party for the registration of the impugned mark NUTRAINIX CHARGE (Device of Packaging) bearing application no. 4634601.
6. That the Second Party shall refrain from filing any trademark application(s) or using any other mark identical and/or deceptively similar to the trademarks/labels of the First Party in future including but not limited to trademarks under the brand FAST&UP.
7. That the Second Party agrees to pay damages amounting to a total of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) to the First Party in, consideration of the settlement of all disputes. Out of the said amount a sum of Rs.95000/- (Rupees Ninety Five Thousand Only) was paid to the First Party by the Second Party on 10.03.2023 vide UPI (Paytm) Transactions vide reference Nos. 306937636540 and 343539622517. A further amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) was paid to the First Party by the Second Party on 11.03.2023 through bank transfer (user reference number 307012173943. The Cheque No. 000005 provided by the Second Party to the First Party for payment of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) shall stand cancelled. The First Party acknowledges the receipt of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) as a part consideration towards settlement of disputes between the parties.
8. The remaining amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Only) shall be paid to the First Party by the Second Party as per the following instalments
a. The first instalment of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) shall be paid on 28.04.2023 vide Cheque No. 000003 drawn on HDFC Bank, IFSC: HDFC0001405.
b. The second instalment of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) shall be paid on 23.06.2023 vide Cheque No. 000004 drawn on HDFC Bank, IFSC: HDFC0001405.
In the event any of the cheques mentioned above being dishonoured for any reason whatsoever, the First Party shall be entitled to initiate appropriate legal proceeding under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 or any other applicable law.
9. In case the Second Party transfers the amount mentioned in the respective cheques before their respective due dates, the said cheques (Cheque Nos. 000003 & 000004) shall be cancelled/returned to the Second Party by the First Party.
10. Both the parties shall have no further claims against each other, and all the disputes and differences have been amicably settled by the
The central legal point established in the judgment is the approval and enforcement of a Settlement Agreement to resolve trademark infringement disputes.
Enforceability of settlement agreements and their impact on the resolution of disputes.
The court's decision was based on the validity and acceptance of the settlement agreement by the parties involved.
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.
The court upheld the settlement agreement as lawful and binding, leading to the decree of the suit in terms of the settlement.
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.
The settlement agreement was found to be lawful and binding, leading to the disposal of the trademark disputes.
Enforcement of Settlement Agreement
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
