SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



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




The court can issue a decree without trial when parties agree on terms, facilitating efficient dispute resolution in trade mark infringement cases.

Headnote:(A) Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 29 and 135 - Plaintiff sought permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing trade marks and for unfair competition in connection with medicinal preparations - Defendants admitted to the relief sought regarding injunctions. (Paras 1 and 4)

(B) Settlement - Defendants agreed to suffer a decree, thus eliminating the need for trial - Court issued a decree incorporating the agreed terms without delving into merits. (Paras 2 and 4)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought injunctions against the defendants for using deceptively similar trade marks which could confuse the public. The relief included destruction of infringing materials and damages amounting to Rs. 2,00,50,000/-.

Findings of Court:
The court decreed the suit as per the terms agreed by the defendants, acknowledging the plaintiffs' entitlement to a refund of court fees.

Issues: The main issues were the legitimacy of the trade mark claims and the defendants' acknowledgment of infringement.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that when parties agree on terms, the court can decree the matter without a trial, reflecting a practical resolution of disputes.

Result: Suit decreed in terms of agreed prayer clauses.

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)

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top