IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Welcome Shoes Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Retro Footwears Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 222 of 2022, C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 668 of 2022, C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 696 of 2022, C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 711 of 2022 and CS(COMM) 336 of 2022
Decided On : 04-11-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. settlement terms between the parties. (Para 2) |
| 2. court decrees settlement terms. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. refund of court fees entitlement. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. appreciation of amicable settlement efforts. (Para 8) |
| 5. withdrawal of petitions following settlement. (Para 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)
CS(COMM) 336/2022 & I.A. 7984/2022 (under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, by Plaintiff), 7985/2022 (under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, by Plaintiff), 14773/2022 (under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act 1999, by Defendants) and 14779/2022 (under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act 1999, by Plaintiff)
1. Mr. Amit Chauhan, Defendants' Director is present in the Court today.
2. With a view to put a quietus to the litigation, Defendants have agreed to amicably resolve the disputes between the parties and it is agreed between the parties as under:
(A) Defendant and its group companies shall withdraw the following trademarks or any other similar/identical trademarks within a period of one week from today:
| SL. No. | APPLICATION NO | Label |
| 1 | 2925933 | ![]() |
| 2 | 2925934 | ![]() |
| 3 | 3339076 | ![]() |
| 4 | 3339077 | ![]() |
| 5 | Retro Group India bure Calzature (label) | ![]() |
| 6 | Retro Group India bure Calzature (label) | ![]() |
(B) Defendant shall not use any mark deceptively similar to `PURE' & `WELCOME' (SUCH AS `BURE', `FURE', DURE, `OURE', `PURE, `WELCOMO', `WELLCOMO') with respect to footwear, soles and straps;
(C) Defendant shall not use any mark deceptively similar to `PURE' & `WELCOME' (such as `BURE', `FURE', `DURE', `OURE', `PURE', `WELCOMO', `WELLCOMO' ETC.) for manufacturing, selling or offering to sell, advertising, exporting or dealing with the said trademark(s) directly or indirectly with respect to footwear, soles and straps;
(D) Defendant shall withdraw the opposition/rectification against the trademark applications mentioned hereunder or any other trademark of the plaintiff within a period of one week from today:
| Trademark of the Plaintiff | Trademark No. | Opposition No |
| Pure with logo | 1808197 | 859689 |
| Pure with logo | 3015879 | 860743 |
| Pure with logo | 3015880 | |
| Pure with Logo | 2451372 | 859690 |
| Pure with Logo | 2451373 | 859691 |
| PURE | 3596825 | 1168262 |
(E) Defendant no. 2 shall within 6 months from today file a request for change of name with the Registrar of Companies with the copy of the application being shared to the Plaintiff. During this period the Defendants undertake not to use the mark `PURE' on any label, product or packaging material, brochure or advertising material or offer any product for sale using the mark `PURE'.
(F) Defendants undertake not to dilute the Trademarks `WELCOME' or `PURE' of the Plaintiff by any advertisement or making any public representation which may cause confusion in any manner in the mind of potential customers or general public regarding the change of name.
(G) Plaintiff shall withdraw all pending cancellation/Rectification applications filed against the impugned marks."
3. The suit is accordingly decreed in terms of the aforesaid settlement.
4. Needless to state that terms of the settlement shall form part of the decree and bind the parties thereto.
5. Plaintiff is entitled to refund of the Court Fees deposited by it, in accordance with provisions of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 read with Section 89 CPC, 1908.
6. Registry is directed to draw up the Decree sheet.
7. Suit is accordingly disposed of along with pending applications.
8. This Court appreciates the efforts put in by the parties, learned Senior Counsels and learned counsels on record to have brought about an amicable settlement of the inter-se disputes.
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 222/2022
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 668/2022 & I.A. 9472/2022 (under Order 11 Rule 1(4) CPC, by Petitioner) and 9473/2022 (Exemption)
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 696/2022 & I.A. 11342/2022 (under Order 11 Rule 1(4) CPC, by Petitioner) and 11343/2022 (Exemption)
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 711/2022 & I.A. 11806/2022 (under Order 11 Rule 1(4) CPC, by Petitioner) and 11807/2022 (Exemption)
9. In view of the order passed in CS(COMM) 336/2022, Petitioner seeks to withdraw the present
Amicable settlements in trademark disputes are encouraged, binding parties to terms agreed upon to reduce litigation and facilitate cooperation.
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.
Enforceability of settlement agreement under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the recognition and enforcement of a lawful settlement between parties under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, leading to the decree in favor of the settling....
The court affirmed that parties may resolve trademark disputes through settlement, provided the terms are adhered to and recognized by the court.
Court authority to record settlements under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC is affirmed, along with provisions for awarding costs to Plaintiffs in cases of trademark infringement.
Settlement agreements under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC can lead to the decreeing of a suit in accordance with the terms of the settlement, effectively resolving the disputes between the parties.
The main legal point established is the enforceability of the terms of settlement under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC in settling the trade mark dispute.
The court applied Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC to decree the suit in terms of the settlement reached between the parties.
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.