Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
Exxon Mobil Corporation – Appellant
Versus
XCEL Automotives Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's directives and awards. (Para 5 , 6 , 14 , 18 , 19) |
| 2. plaintiff's claim of trademark infringement. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. contemnor’s apology and compliance. (Para 12 , 13) |
The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.
I.A.9717/2021 (for early hearing)
2. By this application, plaintiff is seeking early hearing of the main petition.
3. Notice issued.
4. Mr. Anirudh Sarin and Mr. Rohan Ahuja, Advocates, accept notice on behalf of defendant No.1 and 2 respectively and submit there is no objection if the present application is allowed.
5. For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and with the consent of counsel for the parties, the main petition is taken up for hearing today itself. The date of 23.08.2021 already fixed in the suit is accordingly cancelled.
6. Application is disposed of.
CS(COMM) 600/2019
7. In view of order passed in I.A.9717/2021, the date already fixed i.e. 23.08.2021 is cancelled and the suit is taken up for hearing today itself.
8. The present suit for permanent injunction, infringement of trade mark, passing off and account of profits under the TRADE MARKS ACT , 1999 has been filed by the p
The court affirmed protection of registered trademarks against infringement, ensuring consumer clarity and compliance from defendants, imposing costs for repeated litigation.
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of trademark infringement disputes is recognized and enforced by the court, leading to dismissal of the case as withdrawn without evidence on merits.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.
Trademark infringement requires proving exclusive rights to a mark and likelihood of confusion among consumers; a valid settlement can resolve disputes between parties effectively.
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 ....
Trademark infringement under Section 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act was established based on the likelihood of confusion among consumers due to the defendants' use of a mark similar to the plaintiff....
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
