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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6734

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J
HERO MOTOCORP LTD. – Appellant
Versus
M/S SHREE ENTERPRISES – Respondent
CS(COMM) 227/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Kunal Khanna, Mr. Madhav Anand, Mr. Kritin Bhasin, Mr. Yashveer Singh, Mr. Udit Sharma
For the Respondents: Ms. Tejaswini Verma, Ms. Priya Rathi

Court approved settlement of trademark infringement, confirming defendant's consent to pay damages and cease infringement.

Headnote:(A) Design, Trademark, Copyright - Permanent injunction for infringement of design, trademark, copyright, passing off, damages, and other reliefs sought by the plaintiff. Defendant consented to a decree of permanent injunction and agreed to pay nominal damages. (Paras 1-7)

(B) Mediation efforts failed, and the defendant did not contest the matter, consenting to terms of settlement. (Paras 3-5, 12)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs filed for infringement of their trademark and ancillary reliefs; the defendant agreed to settlement terms after mediation failed. (Para 1)

Findings of Court:
Settlement terms accepted; defendant to pay Rs. 2 lakhs in full and final settlement. (Paras 7, 12)

Issues: Consent of the defendant and terms of settlement.

Ratio Decidendi: The admission and undertaking by the defendant were accepted, leading to disposal of the suit.

Result: Suit decreed in favor of plaintiffs.

Table of Content
1. filing for permanent injunction (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. consent to settlement (Para 5)
3. court acceptance of terms (Para 12 , 14)
4. disposal of suit (Para 19)

O R D E R

% 27.08.2025

1. The present suit has been filed seeking permanent injunction for infringement of design, trademark, copyright, passing off, delivery up, rendition of accounts, along with other ancillary reliefs.

2. Vide order dated 12.03.2025, the coordinate Bench of this Court had granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, restraining the defendant from infringing the plaintiff’s trademark and device marks.

3. Vide order dated 13.05.2025, on the joint request, the parties were referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre (‘Mediation Centre’). The report dated 09.07.2025 was received by the Mediation Centre stating that the mediation efforts had failed between the parties.

4. Mr. Rajat Pravinbhai Radadiya, proprietor of M/s Shree CS(COMM) 227/2025 Page 1 of 4 Enterprises/defendant is present in person and is identified by his counsel.

5. Learned counsel for the defendant states that defendant does not wish to contest the matter and is consenting to passing off a decree of permanent injunction in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the plaint.

5.1 She states that defendant is willing to pay notional damages to the plaintiff in full and final settlement of its claims for rendition of accounts, damages and costs.

6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the plaintiff has incurred legal costs towards the local commission and for prosecuting the suit.

6.1 He also submits that the Local Commissioner’s report bears out, that

6,000/- infringing bottles were found during the commission.

7. After some arguments, the following terms and conditions of settlement have been agreed between the parties:

(i) Seized bottles which are being held on superdari by the defendant will be destroyed in the presence of the plaintiffs’

representatives within one (1) week.

(ii) Defendant will pay nominal damages of Rs. 2 lakhs to the plaintiff within one (1) week through RTGS/NEFT into the account of plaintiff no. 1, details whereof will be provided by the counsel for the plaintiff through e-mail to the counsel for the defendant. The aforesaid payment is in full and final settlement of all money claims of the plaintiff including costs.

8. Defendant has executed an affidavit of undertaking dated 27.08.2025 recording the aforesaid terms, which has been handed over to the Court. The same is taken on record.

9. Defendant is directed to also e-file its undertaking within two (2) CS(COMM) 227/2025 Page 2 of 4 days.

10. The original of the undertaking has been handed over to the plaintiff for safe keeping and its record.

11. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties.

12. In view of the aforesaid settlement arrived between the parties and unequivocal admission of the defendant the suit stands decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant prayer clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) in terms of Order XV Rule 1 CPC. Similarly, the relief for delivery up at prayer clause (e), (f), (g) and (h) of the plaint shall stand satisfied with the destruction of the inventoried seized bottles as per the local commissioner’s report.

13. The defendant has undertaken to make a payment of Rs. 2 lakhs within one (1) week. The money claims of the plaintiff in the plaint stand compromised as fully and finally in terms thereof. The money claims at prayer clauses (i), (j), (k) and (l) stand disposed of in terms of this settlement.

14. The statements and undertaking given by the parties are accepted by this Court and the parties are held bound by the same.

15. The defendant is cautioned that in case any subsequent act of infringement is found against him, the plaintiff will be entitled to re-agitate the claim of damages against the said defendant in the fresh suit and passing of the present suit will not amount to res-judicata.

Refund of Court fee

16. Learned counsel

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top