SUNIL NIRANJAN SHAH VS. VIJAY BAHADUR - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 47180

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 47180

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tejas Karia, J
SUNIL NIRANJAN SHAH VS. VIJAY BAHADUR
CS(COMM) 675/2025 | I.A. 32104/2025

Important Points

A court may decree a suit in favor of a plaintiff based on a mutual settlement agreement where the defendant provides undertakings to cease trademark infringement and accepts a permanent injunction.

Subject

Civil Law - Intellectual Property Rights

Act Referred

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: O.23 R.3, S.151

Headnote

The matter involves a suit for trademark infringement and passing off where a joint application was filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The parties reached an amicable settlement wherein the defendant undertook to refrain from using trademarks, trade dress, or domain names identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's marks, specifically those including the words "RELIANCE" and "JIO", and agreed to destroy all infringing materials. The primary issue was the resolution of the dispute between the plaintiff and the fourth defendant. The court's reasoning is based on the mutual agreement and undertakings provided by the defendant to recognize the plaintiff's exclusive proprietary rights and to accept a decree of permanent injunction. Accordingly, the Suit is decreed qua Defendant No. 4 in terms of the Settlement Terms arrived at between them.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Chirag Ahluwalia
For the Respondents: S.K. Verma, Nidhi Raman, Akash Mishra, Abhinav Bhalla, Varun Gupta, Harinder Kumar Bakshi, R.B. Sharam, Priya Goyal, Akash Deep Singh, Surabhi Pande, Abhay Aren, Prithvi Gulati, Ritwik Marwaha

Table of Content
1. parties may resolve trademark disputes through mutual settlement and undertakings to cease infringement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. the court may dispose of interlocutory applications by binding parties to their agreed settlement terms. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. a suit can be decreed against a specific defendant based on the terms of a settlement agreement. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)

O R D E R

I.A. 32104/2025

1. ThisisajointApplicationfiledonbehalfofthePlaintiffandDefendant No. 4 under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submits that during the pendency of the Suit, the Plaintiff entered into a Settlement with Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 on 10.12.2024 and Defendant No. 4 on 19.12.2024.

3. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and the learned Counsel for Defendant No.4 submit that during the pendency of the Suit, the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 4 have amicably arrived at a Settlement on the following Terms:

“i. The Defendant No. 4 undertakes to refrain himself, his partners, servants, agents, dealers, distributors and all persons acting for and on his behalf from engaging directly or indirectly in manufacturing and / or offering for sale and / or selling and / or marketing / advertising and / or adopting and / or using and / or dealing in any manner with any goods and / or services under any trademark near identical and / or deceptively similar to any of the Plaintiff’s trademarks including but not limited to its registered and well-known trademarks RELIANCE and / or JIO and / or any other RELIANCE / JIO Formative Trademarks of the Plaintiff as listed in paragraphs 13 and 38 of the plaint, and /orunderanyothertrademarkwhichconsistsoftheword/mark ‘RELIANCE’ and / or ‘JIO’ and / or and / or and / or any other word / mark deceptively similar thereto, as a part thereof in any manner whatsoever.

ii. The Defendant No. 4 undertakes to refrain himself, his partners, servants, agents, dealers, distributors and all persons acting for and on his behalf from engaging directly or indirectly in manufacturing and / or offering for sale and / or selling and / or marketing / advertising and / or adopting and / or using and / or dealing in any manner with any goods and / or services under the impugned trade dress / packaging and / orunderanyotherproductpackagingand/ortradedresswhich incorporates any of the Plaintiff’s trademarks including but not limitedtoRELIANCEand/orJIOand/oranyotherRELIANCE / JIO Formative Trademarks of the Plaintiff as listed in paragraphs 13 and 38 of the plaint and / or any other trademark(s) deceptively similar / near identical thereto, as part thereof and/orwhichproductpackaging /tradedressbearsany labels / artistic works near identical / deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s labels / artistic works / trademarks including but not limited to / / / / / / and / or under any label / trade dress / packaging / artistic work which consists of the word / mark RELIANCE and / or JIO and / or and / or and / or any other word / mark deceptively similar thereto, as a part thereof in any manner whatsoever.

iii. The Defendant No. 4 hereby recognizes the Plaintiff’s sole, exclusive and lawful proprietary rights, titles and interests in the Plaintiff’s trademarks including but not limited to Plaintiff’s registered and well-known trademarks RELIANCE, JIO, and other RELIANCE and JIO Formative Trademarks including those listed in the paragraphs 13 and 38 of the plaint. The Defendant No. 4 further recognizes the Plaintiff’s sole, exclusive and lawful proprietary rights and interests in the Plaintiff’s artistic works including but not limited to / / / / / / and / or any other original artistic works referenced under paragraph 49 of the plaint. The Defendant No. 4 undertakes to not oppose / challenge / obstruct either directly or indirectly the aforesaid proprietary rights and interests of the Plaintiff in any manner whatsoever including but not limited to by