IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Livguard Energy Technologies Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Mohammad Akil & Anr. – Respondents
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 172 of 2021 & I.A. 12998 of 2023
Decided On : 19-07-2023
Trademark Dispute - Settlement - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XXIII Rule 3
Fact of the Case:
The parties settled the dispute regarding trademark infringement, with the respondent acknowledging the petitioner's exclusive rights and agreeing to cease the use of the infringing mark. The respondent also undertook to take various actions to remove all references to the infringing mark from its products, online platforms, and marketing materials. The respondent sought permission to exhaust its existing stock of goods bearing the infringing mark before a specified date.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the Trade Marks Registry to cancel the infringing word and device marks registered by the respondent, as per the terms of the settlement. The court disposed of the petition based on the settlement and the directions issued.
Issues: Settlement of trademark dispute, cancellation of infringing marks by the Trade Marks Registry
Ratio Decidendi: The court enforced the terms of the settlement agreement, directing the cancellation of the infringing marks by the Trade Marks Registry without waiting for a formal application from the respondent.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of in accordance with the settlement and the court's directions, with the Trade Marks Registry ordered to cancel the infringing marks without further adjudication.
ORDER (Oral)
I.A. 12998/2023 (under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC)
C. Hari Shankar, J.
1. The dispute between the parties in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 172/2021 stands settled and a joint application has been moved by the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
2. The terms of settlement as contained in this application read thus:
a) "The Respondent No.1 recognizes and acknowledges the Petitioner's exclusive proprietary rights in the trademarks LIVFAST/[IMG].
b) The Respondent No.1 confirms that it has already stopped using the mark LEFAST/[IMG] or any other deceptive variations thereof in relation to the products manufactured by it, namely batteries, home UPS batteries, batteries for vehicles, electric batteries, stabilizers, solar batteries, etc. and is now using the mark "SPEEDLINE" in relation to the said products.
c) Respondent No.1 undertakes that it will not use, advertise or sell any products under the mark LEFAST/[IMG] or any other deceptive variations thereof or any other mark which is identical or confusingly similar to the Petitioner's mark LIVFAST/[IMG] in any manner whatsoever, including but not limited to as a trade mark, trading/corporate name, domain name, social media handle, etc. at any time in future.
d) The Respondent No.1 further undertakes not to file any application for registration of mark LEFAST/[IMG] or any other deceptive variations thereof or any other mark which is identical or deceptively similar to the Petitioner's mark LIVFAST/[IMG] at any time in future.
e) The Respondent No.1 undertakes not to challenge the proprietary rights of the Petitioner in the marks LIVFAST/[IMG].
f) Within fifteen (15) days of signing the present settlement application, the Respondent No.1 undertakes to take all appropriate steps to ensure that the domain name
g) Within fifteen (15) days of signing the present settlement application, the Respondent No.1 undertakes to instruct in writing all third-party e-commerce/trading websites such as India Mart, Just Dial, Olx, etc. to take down/cancel its listing from their websites which carry information or photographs of its products bearing the mark LEFAST and to take all appropriate steps, including but not limited to writing follow up letters, to ensure that these websites take down the said listings.
h) Within seven (7) days of signing the present settlement application, the Respondent No.1 will take down its social media accounts on websites such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc which carry listings or photographs or information pertaining to the trade mark LEFAST.
i) The Respondent No.1 undertakes to destroy all packaging material, magazines, brochures, pamphlets or any other publicity material bearing the mark LEFAST/[IMG] or any other deceptive or confusingly similar variations thereof within seven (7) days of signing the present agreement.
j) The Respondent No.1 has informed the Petitioner that it has some left-over stock of goods bearing the mark LEFAST/[IMG]. The Respondent No.1 has sought the Petitioner's permission to exhaust its existing stock of goods bearing the mark LEFAST/[IMG]. In this regard, the Respondent No.1 is seeking time till June 30, 2023 to exhaust its existing stock of goods bearing the mark LEFAST/[IMG]. The Respondent No.1 undertakes that it will not sell any products bearing the mark LEFAST/[IMG] or any deceptive variation thereof after June 30, 2023.
k) Respondent No.1 agrees and undertakes that within one week of signing the present settlement application, it will file an appropriate request under form TM-P before the Trade Marks Office seeking cancellation of the registration of the mark LEFAST, registered under no. 4059607 in class- 9 (Impugned Registration) and provide a copy thereof duly acknowledged by the Trade Marks Office to the Petitioner's counsel.
l) Respondent No.1 agrees and undertakes that within one week of signing the present settlement application, it will file an appropriate r
Enforcement of settlement terms and direction to cancel infringing marks by the Trade Marks Registry
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 of disputes and acknowledgment of terms of settlement by the parties can lead to the court decreeing the suit in favor of the settling party.
Enforceability of settlement agreement under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC.
Mutual agreement between parties led to the cessation of trademark infringement and settlement terms binding on all parties involved.
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.
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.
Amicable settlement between parties can lead to the decree of a suit and resolution of the dispute without further adjudication.
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.
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.