IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
M K Enterprises – Respondent
CS(COMM) 100 of 2023 & I.A. 12910 of 2023
Decided On : 18-07-2023
Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC - Settlement of Trademark Dispute - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XXIII Rule 3
Fact of the Case:
The parties settled the dispute through a joint application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The court found the settlement terms lawful and decreed the suit accordingly, with the parties remaining bound by the settlement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the terms of settlement to be lawful and in order, leading to the decree of the suit in accordance with the settlement terms.
Issues: Settlement of dispute under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the settlement agreement reached by the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC, which the court found to be lawful and in order.
Final Decision: The suit was decreed in terms of the settlement agreement, with the parties remaining bound by the settlement. The plaintiff was entitled to a refund of 50% of the Court fees, if any, deposited by it. The next date of hearing was cancelled.
ORDER (Oral)
I.A. 12910/2023 (Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC)
1. The disputes between the parties stand settled and a joint application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) has been filed.
2. The terms of settlement reads thus:
"i. The Defendant herein acknowledges and recognizes the exclusive statutory and common law rights of the Plaintiffs in the following trademarks (hereinafter referred to as the 'VOLVO' trademarks), in India as are directly relevant to the present proceedings, including all other trademark registrations comprising of the 'VOLVO' word, device and logo marks, not specifically mentioned herein which the Defendant does not and shall not contest:
| Sl. No. | Trademark | Regis No. | Date of Application | Class | Status |
| 1. | VOLVO | 763291 | 20.06.1997 | 4 | Registered |
| 2. | [IMG] VOLVO (device) | 1404133 | 06.12.2005 | 4, 7, 12, 35 | Registered |
| 3. | VOLVO PENTA | 1384891 | 14.09.2005 | 4, 7, 12, 35 | Registered |
| 4. | [IMG] | 3249588 | 12.02.2005 | 4, 12, 35 | Protection granted |
| 5. | [IMG] | 3251273 | 12.02.2005 | 12, 35 | Protection granted |
| 6. | VOLVO | 361886 | 15.05.1980 | 12 | Registered |
| 7. | VOLVO | 763280 | 20.06.1997 | 12 | Registered |
| 8. | [IMG] | 1930763 | 4/03/2010 | 7, 12 | Registered |
| 9. | [IMG] | 1759086 | 02/12/2008 | 12 | Registered |
| 10. | [IMG] | 1759088 | 02/12/2008 | 12 | Registered |
| 11. | VOLVO FD | 1466300 | 30/06/2006 | 12 | Registered |
| 12. | [IMG] | 1759085 | 02/12/2008 | 12 | Registered |
| 13. | [IMG] | 1759087 | 02/12/2008 | 12 | Registered |
| 14. | [IMG] | 1759089 | 02/12/2008 | 12 | Registered |
| 15. | VOLVO SELEKT | 2119694 | 22.03.2011 | 12 | Registered |
ii. The Defendant hereby acknowledges and recognizes that the Plaintiffs' trademark 'VOLVO' is a well-known trademark as defined under the provisions of section 2 (1) (zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
iii. The Defendant agrees to a decree of permanent injunction in terms of prayer clause 75 (i) of the Plaint, that it will not by itself or through its subsidiaries, affiliates, franchisees, proprietors, officers, servants, agents, distributors, stockists, representatives, and anyone acting for or on its behalf, use the name/mark 'VOLVOSTAR'/[IMG] and/or any other name/mark, identical or deceptively similar thereto to the Plaintiffs' name/registered and well-known mark 'VOLVO' in relation to their business activities of manufacturing, marketing, supplying and repackaging of turbo engine oil products or as regards any other goods or services, in any manner, including on products and product packaging; in email ids; in domain names; on social media posts; in third party listings and/or as regards any online and offline representation amounting to:
a) Infringement of Plaintiff No.2's registered trademarks bearing registration numbers 763291, 1384891, 3249588, 1404133;
b) Passing off the Defendant's products and services as those of the Plaintiffs;
c) Dilution and tarnishment of the Plaintiffs' registered and well-known trademark 'VOLVO';
d) Unfair competition vis-a-vis. Plaintiffs' business under its registered and well-known trademark 'VOLVO'.
iv. The Defendant agrees to a decree in terms of prayer clause 75 (ii) of the Plaint and undertakes to destroy all the finished and unfinished materials, including all product containers, packaging, brochures, promotional material, labels, stickers, cartons, dyes, articles, locks, signage, business cards, stationary material, accessories, and any other material bearing the name/mark 'VOLVOSTAR'/[IMG] and/or any other name/mark, identical or deceptively similar thereto to the Plaintiffs' name/registered and well-known mark 'VOLVO' at their own cost within seven (7) days of the execution present Settlement Agreement.
v. The Defendant agrees to a decree in terms of prayer clause 75 (iv) of the Plaint and undertakes to withdraw its Trademark, Application bearing no. 5088418 for the name/mark "VOLVOSTAR' in Class 4 (lubricants oil, industrial oil, and industrial grease) as is filed before the Trademark Registry. The Defendant shall write a letter withdrawal letter to the Trademark Registry and furnish proof of the same to the counsel of the Plaintiffs within seven (7) days of the present execution present Settlement Agreemen
The judgment confirms the acknowledgment of trademark ownership and sets enforcement measures against infringement, emphasizing settlement agreements under the CPC.
The court has the authority to examine and decree a suit based on the terms of settlement between the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC.
The court's decision was influenced by the binding nature of the settlement agreement, which required the defendants to acknowledge the plaintiff's trademark and cease all use of the impugned marks.
Enforceability of settlement agreement under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the granting of an ex-parte ad interim injunction based on the prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, and the balance of conve....
The court affirmed the trademark's well-known status and granted interim protection against its unauthorized use, establishing a prima facie case of infringement by the defendant.
The main legal point established is the enforceability of the terms of settlement under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC in settling the trade mark dispute.
Settlement agreements can resolve disputes and lead to the decree of a suit in terms of the settlement.
The court upheld the settlement agreement as lawful and binding, leading to the decree of the suit in terms of the settlement.
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.