IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Lifesurge Biosciences Private Ltd. - Respondent
CS(COMM) 813 of 2022 & I.A. 19628 of 2022, I.A. 19629 of 2022
Decided On : 22-12-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. settlement terms and trademark recognition (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. counsel's undertakings and implications for case (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. decree issued as per settlement (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. refund of court fee entitlement (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT
C.Hari Shankar, J. (ORAL)
1. The dispute between these parties stand settled. A joint application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) has been filed in the Registry. It has not been listed. However, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff has provided a copy across the Bar which is taken on record. The Registry is directed to register the application under appropriate number.
2. The terms of settlement, as contained in the application, read thus:
"i. The Defendants above named hereby recognizes the Plaintiff to be the proprietor of the trade mark NORMOZ & SUN, thereby having exclusive right to the use of the said trademarks;
ii. The Defendants undertake to refrain themselves, their Directors, their assigns in business, licensees, franchisee, distributors, dealers, stockiest, retailers, chemists, from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in medicinal & pharmaceutical preparations under the impugned mark NORMOCOS and SUNSURGE or any other trade mark which is deceptively, confusingly similar to the Plaintiff's trade mark NORMOZ and containing SUN or mark deceptively, confusingly similar to SUN, as per the terms agreed herewith;
iii. Defendant No. 1's undertakes to withdraw the application for registration of the impugned mark NORMOCOS under no. 4122657 dated 19.03.2019 and for the impugned mark SUNSURGE under no. 3923875 dated 23.08.2018 under intimation to the Plaintiff within a period of 2 weeks from the recording of the present compromise;
iv. The last batch details of the medicine under the impugned mark NORMOCOS & SUNSURGE, as disclosed by the Defendants are as below;
| Impugned Product | Batch No. | Mfg. Date | Expiry | Qty. |
| NORMOCOS | 21L1290 | 01/12/2021 | 30/11/2023 | 443 |
| SUNSURGE SACHETS | 120SSG003 | 01/10/2021 | 30/09/2023 | 3158 |
| SUNSURGE SOFTGEL | SR2103 | 01/10/2021 | 30/09/2023 | 978 |
v. The Defendants further confirm that they have directed removal of all the listings bearing the impugned mark NORMOCOS and SUNSURGE, on various online websites, e- commerce platforms, online business directories, and such listings shall be removed before 31st March, 2023 by consistent follow ups and submitting the proofs of the same to the Plaintiff;
vi. The Defendants confirm that they will dispose-off the stocks under the impugned mark NORMOCOS and SUNSURGE before 31st March, 2023.
vii. The Defendants confirm that they will destroy all stationery, packaging, promotional and publicity material and labels under the impugned mark NORMOCOS & SUNSURGE before 31st March, 2023, if any, lying with them;
viii. The Defendants confirm that they shall not file any application for registration of any trade mark/domain name which is deceptively, confusingly similar to the Plaintiff's trade mark NORMOZ and containing SUN or mark deceptively, confusingly similar to SUN, and will not challenge the rights of the Plaintiff in its trade mark either directly or indirectly;
ix. The Plaintiff is foregoing costs and damages as sought in the plaint at the request of the Defendants;
x. The abovementioned undertakings have been on behalf of all the Defendants, and the same shall be binding on the Defendants, its assignees in business, franchisees, licensees, distributors, dealers and agents for all times to come."
3. Mr. Sachin Gupta learned Counsel for the plaintiff, on behalf of his client and the defendant who is present in person, undertake to remain bound by the aforesaid terms of settlement.
4. In view thereof, nothing survives for adjudication in the suit.
5. The suit is accordingly decreed in terms of the settlement recorded hereinabove by which the parties shall remain bound.
6. The Registry is directed to draw up a decree sheet accordingly.
7. The plaintiff shall be entitled
Mutual agreement between parties led to the cessation of trademark infringement and settlement terms binding on all parties involved.
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.
The court upheld the settlement agreement as lawful and binding, leading to the decree of the suit in terms of the settlement.
The court applied Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC to decree the suit in terms of the settlement reached between the parties.
Settlement of disputes and acknowledgment of terms of settlement by the parties can lead to the court decreeing the suit in favor of the settling party.
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 court affirmed that parties may resolve trademark disputes through settlement, provided the terms are adhered to and recognized by the court.
The court's approval of the settlement agreement and the subsequent decree based on the terms of the agreement.
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.
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.