Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 32213
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Mini Pushkarna, J
M/S. HARI CHAND SHRI GOPAL – Appellant
Versus
M/S GURU IMPERIAL AND CO/GURU IMPERIAL – Respondent
CS(COMM) 664/2023
RIDHIE BAJAJ
A settlement between parties in a trademark infringement suit leads to a decree in favor of the plaintiff, with costs awarded against the defendant.
Headnote:(A) Trademarks Act, 1999 - Sections relevant for trademark infringement and permanent injunction - The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction against the defendant for manufacturing and selling tobacco products under similar trademarks - The parties reached a settlement, resulting in a decree in favor of the plaintiff. (Paras 5, 8, 12)
(B) Settlement - The parties agreed on terms, including payment of costs and compliance with the settlement conditions. (Paras 2, 10)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for infringing trademarks by selling products under similar names. The court issued an interim injunction prior to the settlement.
Findings of Court:
The suit is decreed in favor of the plaintiff, with costs payable by the defendant.
Issues: The primary issue was the infringement of trademarks and the subsequent settlement between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of the settlement reached by the parties and ordered compliance with its terms.
Result: Suit decreed in favor of the plaintiff.
O R D E R
2. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant submits that the defendant is ready to suffer a decree.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is entitled to cost.
4. With the consent of the parties, cost of ₹10,000/ - is payable by the defendant to the plaintiff.
5. The present suit has been filed seeking permanent injunction
1. The present suit has been settled between the parties.
restraining the defendant or any other person acting on its behalf from manufacturing, selling tobacco-related products including Chewing Tobacco bearing the trademark ‘GURU 60’/ ‘SHREE GURU 60’, and/ or any other trademark, which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trademarks ‘GOPAL’, ‘GOPAL 60’, ‘GOPAL ZARDA 60’, ‘DELUXE GOPAL ZARDA 60’, ‘GOPAL G-606’, etc., or doing any other act which is likely to lead to infringement of registered trademarks of the plaintiff.
6. The present suit has been filed since the plaintiff is aggrieved by the fact that the defendant is manufacturing and selling chewing tobacco under the name ‘GURU 60’ or ‘SHREE GURU 60’, using a trade dress, which is identical to that of the plaintiff. The table showing the similarity between the two trade dresses, as given in the plaint, is reproduced as under:-
7. When the matter was listed for hearing on 22 nd September, 2023, an interim injunction was passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, wherein, the defendant was restrained from manufacturing or selling any tobacco product or any allied or cognate item bearing a trade
8. Considering the submissions made before this Court and that the parties have reached a settlement, the following directions are issued:-
I. The suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in terms of para 46 (i) to (iv) of the plaint.
II. Costs of ₹10,000/ - shall be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff within a period of two weeks from today.
9. Both the parties are bound by the terms of the settlement.
10. In view of the settlement between the parties, the Registry of this Court is directed to issue a certificate of refund of full Court fees in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
11. Decree sheet be drawn up.
12. The present suit, along with the pending applications, stands disposed of.
