Back
2024 Supreme(Del) 782
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.
Mr Sharad Mehra – Appellant
Versus
Sanjay Mehra - Respondent
Cont.CAS(C) 1880/2024, CM APPL. 69170-69172/2024 & CM APPL. 69586/2024
Decided on : 28-11-2024
For the Appellant :Mr. Chander M. Lal & Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, Sr. Advocates with Mr. Nikhil Singhvi, Mr. L. Badri Narayanan, Mr. Kunal Arora, Mr. Archit Gupta, Mr. Sanyam Kumar & Mr. Parth Aggarwal, Advocates with Petitioner in person.
For the Respondent:Mr. Sandeep Sethi & Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Sr. Advocates, Mr. Manish Biala, Mr. Devesh Ratan, Mr. Shreyek Gupta, Mr. Sumer Dev Seth & Ms. Shreya, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court found prima facie evidence of violation of Settlement Terms regarding trademark usage and issued interim directions to prevent further non-compliance.
Headnote:
(A) Settlement Terms - Violation of Settlement Terms regarding use of trademark "SUPERON" - The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated the Settlement Terms by using the trademark in promotional materials at an International Fair - The Court found prima facie evidence of violation and directed the Respondent to cease such use - The Settlement Terms provided for geographical division of trademark usage between the parties. (Paras 5, 10, 22)
(B) Interim Relief - The Court emphasized the need for interim directions to prevent further non-compliance with the Settlement Terms to avoid customer confusion. (Paras 22, 24)
JUDGMENT :
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.
This matter has been received on transfer.
CM APPL. 69170/2024 [Exemption from filing certified copies]
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The Application stands disposed of.
CM APPL. 69172/2024 [Exemption from filing certified/clear/true typed copies]
3. Allowed, subject to the Petitioner filing typed copies of the annexures within a period of three weeks.
4. The Application stands disposed of.
CONT.CAS(C) 1880/2024, CM APPL. 69171/2024 [seeking ad interim injunction]
CM APPL. 69586/2024 [seeking directions]
5. The present Petition has been filed by the Petitioner stating that there have been gross and flagrant violations and wilful disobedience of the orders dated 14.11.2022 and 27.04.23 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in FAO(OS)(COMM) 280/2022 captioned Sharad Mehra vs. Sanjay Mehra & Ors. [hereinafter referred to as the “DB Matter”] and the terms of settlement executed between the Petitioner and Respondent dated 27.04.2023 [hereinafter referred to as the “Settlement Terms”] have been violated.
6. On 04.09.2023, the parties undertook before the Division Bench in the DB Matter that they shall not use the word/trade name “Superon” contrary to the terms of the Settlement dated 27.04.2023 and the settlement was taken on record by the Court in the DB Matter.
7. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner and the Respondent, who are brothers, had, after a series of litigations inter-se between them, reached a settlement on 27.04.2023. This Settlement was recorded in a document called ‘Terms of Settlement’. Briefly, the terms of this settlement were that the parent company would be divided into two Divisions: the Domestic and Export Divisions. The Domestic Division would remain with the Respondent and the Export Division with the Petitioner.
8. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that there is a violation of Clauses 4, 5 and 6 of the Settlement Terms by the Respondent. It is contended that the Settlement Terms provided for the fact that the Petitioner would not use the word “SUPERON” within the territory of India while the Respondent or his group companies would not use acronyms of the Petitioner’s companies on its products and packaging.
8.1 It is the contention of the Petitioner that the Settlement Terms are being violated by the Respondent by its participation in the International Trade Fair which is presently being held at Mumbai from 27.11.2024 to 29.11.2024 [hereinafter referred to as the “International Fair”].
8.2 It is contended by the Petitioner that the Respondent has wrongly used promotional materials, advertisements and other display materials using the word, “SUPERON INDIA” in a deliberate and misleading attempt to portray its exclusivity in Superon products. It is also contended that by use of the word “ONLY ONE SUPERON”, the Respondent is misleading the public at large.
8.3 The Petitioner also raises an objection to the fact that until September, 2024, the Respondent had been using a disclaimer “DOMESTIC MARKET – INDIA ONLY” in all its promotional materials, however, this has not been followed by him in the stall/banners/marketing materials in the International Fair. The Petitioner contends that this is a violation of the Settlement Terms.
8.4 Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner further contends that the Settlement Terms also provide that there will be no interlinking of the group companies of the Respondent and by using the word “STANVAC-SUPERON GROUP” on the display material in the Internation Fair, the Settlement Terms is being violated. In addition, the Respondent has directly interlinked “Superon Schweisstechnik Industries Ltd.”, “Stanvac Chemicals India Ltd.” and “Stanvac International Ltd.” by explicitly showing them to be a part of the “Stanvac-Superon Group” in violation of the Settlement Terms.
8.5 Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon paragraph 1 of the order dated 18.11.2022 passed in the DB Matter to submit that u
