$~6, 7 and 29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 74/2024 J S F HOLDINGS PVT LTD .....Appellant Through: Ms. Jaya Negi and Ms. Yashi Agarwal, Advocates versus ASSISTANT REGISTAR OF TRADE MARKS AND GI & ANR.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Ayush Beotra, Mr. Arpit Jain and Ms. Rashi Agarwal, Advs. for R-2 Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC, Mr. Om Ram, Advocate for Registrar of Trademarks

7 + C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 79/2024 J.S.F. HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. .....Appellant Through: Ms. Jaya Negi and Ms. Yashi Agarwal, Advocates versus ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS AND GI & ANR.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Ayush Beotra, Mr. Arpit Jain and Ms. Rashi Agarwal, Advs. for R-2 Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC, Mr. Om Ram, Advocate for Registrar of Trademarks + CS(COMM) 1012/2024 & I.A. 45004/2024 J S F HOLDINGS PVT LTD .....Plaintiff Through: Ms. Jaya Negi and Ms. Yashi Agarwal, Advocates versus MR AJAZ AHMAD BHAT TRADING AS LAZZAT FOODS AND SPICES .....Defendant Through: Mr. Ayush Beotra, Mr. Arpit Jain and Ms. Rashi Agarwal, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

O R D E R

% 11.12.2025 C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 74/2024 and C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 79/2024

1. These are the appeals filed under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Rule 6 of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 read with Section 151 CPC against the order dated 07.08.2024 passed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks dismissing appellant’s notice of opposition against the respondent no. 2’s trademark application nos. 2831721 and 2831722.

2. On the joint request made by the parties, the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.03.2025 referred the matter to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre [‘SAMADHAN’], for amicable settlement of disputes. The mediation has resulted in successful settlement of disputes.

3. Settlement Agreement dated 05.12.2025 [‘Settlement Agreement’] executed between the parties has been received from the Registry. The said agreement is taken on record and marked as Exhibit-C

4. Learned counsel for the parties’ state that the parties undertake to remain bound by the terms and conditions recorded in the Settlement Agreement.

5. They state that parties have agreed that the captioned appeals can be disposed of in terms of the Settlement Agreement and pray that a direction be issued to the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks to rectify the records in terms of paragraph (c) and (i) of the present Settlement Agreement.

6. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 states that respondent no. 2 will file appropriate applications before the trademark registry within two (2)

weeks for giving effect to the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

7. This Court has perused the terms and conditions set out in the Settlement Agreement and is satisfied that the same is lawful.

8. The Supreme Court in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd., (2010) 8 SCC 24., while dealing with Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [‘CPC’] has observed that a settlement agreement executed between the parties should be placed before the Court for recording it and disposing of the suit in its terms. And, while dealing with the settlement the Court should apply the Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC and make a decree in terms of the settlement in regard to the subject matter of the suit, to make such settlement effective.

9. This Court is satisfied that the Settlement Agreement entered between the parties is lawful and satisfies the requirements of Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC. Therefore, this Court does not find any impediment in disposing of the captioned petitions in terms of the aforesaid Settlement Agreement.

10. The statements and undertakings given by the parties are accepted by this Court and the parties are held bound by the same.

11. Respondent no. 2 is directed to file the appropriate application before the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks within two (2) weeks for giving effect to the terms and conditions r