Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
Kunal Khandelwal – Appellant
Versus
Bennett, Coleman and Company Limited – Respondent
The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.
I.A. No. 8222/2021 (u/O XXIII Rule 3 r/w Sec. 151 CPC) in CS(COMM) 423/2020
1. The present suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark, passing off, rendition of accounts of profits/damages, delivery up etc. restraining the defendants its partners, associates, assigns in business, licensees and or franchisees and any other person claiming right through it for use of trade mark `ZOOM STOCKS'
or any other identical or deceptively similar trade mark in respect of goods and services falling under class 9, 35, 41 and 42 in any manner including advertising, promoting through any platform including online platforms or by any other means or dealing in any manner directly or indirectly amounting to infringement of plaintiff's registered trade mark, stands settled between the parties, which has led to filing of the joint application in hand, which is duly signed by Mr. Sanjay K. Agarwal, Authorized Signatory of plaintiff and Mr. Kunal Khandelwal, defendant in person as well as their respective counsels and is also accompanied by the affidavit of the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the part
The amicable settlement of trademark infringement disputes is recognized and enforced by the court, leading to dismissal of the case as withdrawn without evidence on merits.
The court's decision was based on the settlement between the parties, which led to the withdrawal of the suit and refund of court fees.
The court's decision was influenced by the lawful terms of the settlement agreement and previous decisions, allowing for the refund of entire court fees.
The court validated the settlement agreement between the parties and ruled for the full refund of court fees, reinforcing the principle that amicable resolution entitles a party to such refunds.
Amicably settled - Suit for permanent injunction - Plaintiff is entitled to a certificate from this Court authorizing him to seek refund of entire court fees from authorities concerned in respect of ....
The court recognized a legally valid and binding settlement reached between parties through mediation to resolve trademark and copyright disputes, endorsing the Settlement Agreement as the basis for ....
The court decreed the suit in terms of a valid and lawful Settlement Agreement mutually settled by the parties.
Settlement agreements reached through mediation are binding and enforceable, and parties are entitled to court fee refunds when disputes are amicably resolved.
Mutual settlement of disputes allows parties to withdraw claims under Order XXIII Rule 3, leading to court decreeing the suit based on agreed terms.
The court affirmed protection of registered trademarks against infringement, ensuring consumer clarity and compliance from defendants, imposing costs for repeated litigation.
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
