IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Pentel Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
M/s Arora Sationers & Ors. - Respondents
CS(COMM) 361 of 2017, I.A. 6057 of 2017, I.A. 2692 of 2022 & I.A. 2693 of 2022
Decided On : 12-12-2023
Registered Design - Settlement Agreement - Designs Act, 2000 - Section 2, Section 22, Section 29 - The court settled the dispute between the parties in terms of the settlement agreement, which acknowledged the validity of the Registered Design under the Designs Act, 2000 and outlined the obligations of the parties in relation to the design rights and trademarks.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute between the parties was settled in terms of the settlement agreement dated 11 September 2023, and the court decreed the suit in accordance with the settlement agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the terms of settlement to be legal and in order, and as a result, the dispute in the present suit did not survive for consideration.
Issues: Settlement of dispute, validity of Registered Design, obligations of the parties
Ratio Decidendi: The court decreed the suit in terms of the settlement agreement, and the parties remained bound by the terms of settlement agreement.
Final Decision: The suit was decreed in terms of the settlement agreement, and the parties were bound by the terms of the settlement agreement.
ORDER (Oral)
1. The dispute between the parties stand settled in terms of the settlement agreement dated 11 September 2023, which has been placed on record.
2. The terms of settlement read thus:
"(i) That the Second Party/Defendants acknowledge the validity of the Registered Design of the First Party/Plaintiff in Design No. 263172 and acknowledge that Plaintiff no. 1 is the owner of the Design No. 263172 under the Designs Act, 2000 as well as under common law.
(ii) That the Second Party/Defendants agree and undertake to cease manufacture, sale, offer for sale and/or advertise any product that is identical to or an obvious fraudulent imitation of the Plaintiff No. 1's Design bearing Registration No. 263172 which amounts to infringement of the Plaintiff's rights in their Registered Design including, but not limited to, the designs marketed under the brands MONTEX MASTANI and MONTEX X-20. An extract of the two writing instruments sold under the said brands is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-D.
(iii) That the First Party/Plaintiffs agree and undertake that they shall not object to the Second Party's/Defendant's use of the Trade Marks-MONTEX MASTANI and MONTEX X-20.
(iv) The Second Party/Defendants undertake to take down all product listings across all E-Commerce and other platforms pertaining to the aforementioned designs under the brands MONTEX MASTANI and MONTEX X-20 within one month from the date of this agreement and, if any other listings are found, within 24 hours of the said listing being brought to the attention of the Defendants.
(v) That during the course of mediation proceedings, the Second Party/Defendants had proposed an alternative design to be applied to a pen/writing instrument, which design along with the surface texture is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-E. The Plaintiffs agree and undertake that they have no objection to the use of the annexed design by the Defendants.
(vi) That the First Party/Plaintiffs agree and undertake that they have no objection to the use of trade mark MASTANI as well as to the use of blue and black color combination on the defendant's modified pen, marked as ANNEXURE E.
(vii) That the Defendant No. 2 agrees and undertakes that it shall withdraw the Cancellation Petition filed against the Plaintiff No. 1's Registered Design bearing Registration No. 263172 and take necessary steps for seeking such withdrawal including addressing such communication/petition as may be necessary to The Designs Office prior to October 14th, 2023 under intimation to the counsel for Plaintiffs/First Party.
(viii) That the Defendant No. 3 agrees and undertakes that it shall surrender/seek cancellation of their Registered Design under Registration No. 282909 and take necessary steps for seeking such cancellation including addressing such communication/petition as may be necessary prior to October 14th, 2023 under intimation to the counsel for First Party/Plaintiffs.
(ix) That Mr. Ramanlal Rughnathmalji, the proprietor of Defendant no. 2, agrees and undertakes that it shall seek cancellation of the Registered Trade Mark under Registration no. 3242266 under Section 58 of The Trade Marks Act, 1999 by filing requisite form TM-P and take other necessary steps as may be necessary prior to October 14th, 2023, under intimation to the counsel for First Party/Plaintiffs.
(x) That the Second Party/Defendants agree and undertake that they shall withdraw the review petition being REVIEW PET No. 341 of 2019 in FAO(OS)(COMM) 29 of 2018.
(xi) That the Second Party/Defendants agree and undertake to pay to the First Party/Plaintiffs an amount of INR 10,00,000 (INR Ten Lakhs Only) by way of account transfer on or before October 14th, 2023, towards full and final settlement, litigation costs and damages to the following account of the Plaintiff No.1:
Beneficiary Bank: MUFG BANK, LTD.
SWIFT code: BOTKJPJT
Branch Name: ASAKUSABASHI BRANCH
Beneficiary Account Number: 069-0540446
Beneficiary Name: PENTEL CO., LTD
(xii) The parties agree th
Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Siffynet Solutions (P) Ltd.
Dean Chandler v. Sazerac Brands LLC
Sudarsan Trading Co. v. The Government of Kerala
MSK Projects (I) (JV) Ltd v. State of Rajasthan
Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd v. N.H.A.I.
Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd v. D.M.R.C.
Enforcement of settlement agreement and acknowledgment of validity of Registered Design under the Designs Act, 2000
Recognition of exclusive proprietary rights in designs and prohibition of imitation, settlement as a basis for decreeing the suit, and foregone claim for damages and account of profit.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the binding nature of a settlement agreement reached between parties, which can lead to the court decreeing the suit in terms of the settlement and....
Settlement agreements in trademark disputes are binding and enforceable, and the Court may decree the suit in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
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 central legal point established in the judgment is the approval and enforcement of a Settlement Agreement to resolve trademark infringement disputes.
The court applied Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC to decree the suit in terms of the settlement reached between the parties.
Settlement agreements can be used to resolve disputes without delving into the merits of the case, and the court may decree the suit in terms of the settlement 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.