IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Cedar Properties & Trading LLP - Appellant
Versus
Innova Captab Ltd. - Respondent
CS(COMM) 614 of 2021 & I.A. 15757 of 2021
Decided On : 09-12-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's prayer for injunction and damages. (Para 1) |
| 2. defendants agree to decree terms. (Para 2) |
| 3. no need to address merits due to agreement. (Para 3) |
| 4. suit decreed as per plaintiff's prayers. (Para 4) |
| 5. court fees to be refunded to plaintiffs. (Para 5 , 6) |
C. Hari Shankar, J.
1. The prayer clause in the present plaint, instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants, reads thus:
"37. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant the following reliefs:
i) A decree for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their servants, agents, assigns in business, its dealers, stockists etc. from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in medicinal and pharmaceutical/medicinal preparations under the impugned Trade Marks "DROTAWAL" or any other mark that may be identical to and/or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs Trade Mark "DROTIN/DROTIN M" as is likely to cause confusion or deception or which is likely to have an association with the registered mark amounting to infringement of the Plaintiffs' registered trade mark No. 732349;
ii) A decree for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their servants, agents, assigns in business, its dealers, stockists etc. from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations under the impugned trademarks "DROTAWAL" or any other mark that may be identical to and/or deceptively similar with the Plaintiff's registered trade mark DROTIN, as may be likely to cause confusion or deception in the mind of the public in mistaking the Defendant's goods/business as and for those of the Plaintiffs amounting to infringement, passing off & unfair competition/dilution.
iii) A decree for delivery up of all the infringing packaging, labels, blocks, dyes, articles etc. to an authorised representative of the Plaintiffs for destruction/erasure.
iv) An order for rendition of accounts of profits illegally earned by the Defendant and a decree for an amount so found due;
v) A decree of Rs. 2,00,50,000/-.
vi) An order for costs in the proceedings; and
vii) Any further order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case."
2. On 1st September 2022, the learned Counsel for the defendants submitted under instructions that the defendants were ready to suffer a decree in terms of the prayers (i) and (ii) of the prayer clause in the plaint.
3. As such, it is not necessary for this Court to enter into the merits of the dispute.
4. The suit, accordingly, stands decreed in terms of prayer clauses (i) and (ii) in para 37 of the plaint reproduced hereinabove.
5. Let a decree sheet be drawn up by the registry.
6. As the suit has been decreed without trial, the plaintiffs would be entitled to be refunded the Court fees, if any, deposited by them.
The court can issue a decree without trial when parties agree on terms, facilitating efficient dispute resolution in trade mark infringement cases.
Trademark infringement is addressed when a defendant undertakes not to use a contested mark, leading to permanent injunctions to prevent confusion or deception in the marketplace.
Permanent injunction granted against the defendant for trademark infringement, with plaintiffs waiving claims for damages following mutual consent.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the grant of a permanent injunction in a trademark dispute, based on the consent of the defendant and the recognition of the plaintiffs' trade mark....
Trademark infringement occurs when a mark is identical or deceptively similar to a registered trademark, potentially harming the original owner.
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.