Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
C.HARI SHANKAR
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited – Appellant
Versus
West-coast Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. defendant acknowledges plaintiff's trademark rights. (Para 1) |
| 2. plaintiff seeks costs; defendant opposes. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court observes no dispute remains. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. court orders token costs and fee refund. (Para 6 , 9) |
| 5. suit decreed as per terms of agreement. (Para 7 , 8) |
(Video-Conferencing)
CS(COMM) 242/2021 & I.A. 6799/2021 (Order XXXIX Rules 1&2 CPC)
1. Consequent to the directions passed by this Court on earlier dates of hearing, an affidavit has been filed by the defendant, paras 1 to 7 whereof are reproduced as under:
"1. The defendant company agreed and acknowledged the plaintiff No.1-company having registered Trademark "OMEZ".
2. The defendant hereby undertake to this Honourable court and to the Plaintiff that, defendant will neither by itself nor through its Director, Group of Company and its divisions assigned and its business, presence, Distributor and dealers, present manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, directly or indirectly dealing in the impugned Trademark "OMES" or in combination or in any other form as it may amount to infringement of Plaintiffs Trademark Registration as mentioned in para 9 of the Plaint.
3. The defen
Trademark acknowledgment and the avoidance of misuse are crucial in trademark disputes; costs for unnecessary litigation may be imposed to deter vexatious claims.
The court issued a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the plaintiff's trademark and ordered the defendant to change its company name based on the defendant's undertaking.
The court's decision was based on the defendant's undertaking and the plaintiff's agreement, leading to the decree in favor of the plaintiff.
The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff based on the defendant's agreement to cease using the impugned marks, rendering the dispute moot.
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.
Enforceability of settlement agreement under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC.
Settlement agreements can effectively resolve disputes in trademark infringement cases, allowing parties to acknowledge rights and agree on actions to prevent future violations.
The court upheld the exclusive ownership of registered trademarks and granted a permanent injunction to prevent infringement and passing off of goods.
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
