Settlement agreements regarding trademark disputes are binding and enforceable, and parties must comply with the specified terms regarding the acknowledgment of ownership and cessation of infringing activities.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

C. Hari Shankar, J.

1. The dispute between the parties in this case stands settled vide Settlement Agreement dated 1st November 2022, executed under the aegis of the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The terms of settlement read thus:

"(i) The Defendants acknowledge the Plaintiff to be the proprietor of the well-known trade mark TATA.

(ii) That the Defendants acknowledge that the trade mark TATA of the Plaintiff is a well-known and famous trademark and by their act of using the same on their products, they had infringed the Plaintiff's registered and well-known trademark TATA and passed of their goods as that of the Plaintiff's.

(iii) That the Defendants hereby undertake that in future, they shall never use for manufacturing, marketing, distributing, selling (online/offline/directly or indirectly), offering for sale, advertising, sponsoring or howsoever otherwise dealing in any goods/products/services bearing aforementioned mark TATA of the Plaintiff and/or any other mark similar and/or deceptively similar to the mark TATA of the Plaintiff on its goods, services or products in any manner whatsoever, or through its agents, employees, dealers or franchisees.

(iv) That within one month of signing of the present settlement agreement and in any event not beyond 27.11.2022, the Defendants undertake to withdraw their registered trademark bearing no. 526748 dated 23/03/1990 in class 25 for all kinds of hosiery goods' for a device /label mark containing the mark TATA and undertake to never register the same in future also and in any event abandon any and all mark similar to that of the Plaintiff including the mark as given below:

(v) The Defendants undertakes that except for the abovementioned trademark, bearing no. 526748, they neither own nor have applied for the registration of the mark TATA or any other mark deceptively similar to the mark TATA, before any authority, for any purpose whatsoever, nor shall they apply for the registration of mark TATA or any other mark deceptively similar to the mark TATA in future. In any event, the Defendants agree to not proceed or register any mark similar to TATA if otherwise not mentioned as aforestated.

(vi) That the Defendants declare that they do not have in their possession any stock of the impugned goods bearing the Plaintiff's well-known mark TATA besides the stock seized as explained below. The Defendants further undertake to destroy all their goods bearing the mark TATA, that were seized at the time of execution of the local commission proceedings, pursuant to the directions passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 5th April, 2021, and which were then returned to them on superdarinama. The Defendants further undertake to conduct such destruction of such seized goods, bearing the Plaintiff's well-known mark TATA, within two months of signing of the present settlement agreement and in any event before 28.12.2022. It is understood between the parties that the Plaintiff's representative will within this duration contact the Defendants to supervise the said procedure for their convenience. The Defendants further undertake to carry out the said process in the presence of the Plaintiff's representative only which will be undertaken on or before 28.12.2022.

(vii) It is agreed between the parties that the Defendants shall on their own cost engage a professional, who would try to remove the Plaintiff's well-known mark `TATA', from the abovementioned goods which were seized at the time of execution of the local commission proceedings and were returned to them on superdarinama. In the event the mark is removed from the said products, the same will be used by the Defendants as per the terms and conditions of the present settlement agreement. however, in