- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 23 July 2010
- Bench
- Joint Registrar Sh. Prem Kumar Barthwal
- Case no.
- CS(OS) 33/2008
Judgment
% 23.07.2010 Present: Mr. Ajay Amitabh, Adv. for the plaintiff. Mr. Krishna M.S., Adv. for the defendant. + lA No. 9551/2010 in CSfOS^ No. 33/2008
¶1This is a joint application under Order 23 Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure.
¶2It has been stated in the application that the parties have settled the dispute betweenthemselvesand the terms and conditionsare as under "(i) The defendantadmitsthe plaintiffto be the ownerand proprietor of the trademark/label PAURUSH JIWAN which is under nos.709971 in Class 5, 1329780 in Class 35 and 996247 in Class 05 under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
(ii) The defendantundertakesnot to manufacture,sell, offer for sale, advertise, directly or indirectly deal in AyurvedicMedicinalProductsor any products or other goods or service of the same descriptionunder the trademark/label PAURUSH Shakti Nav JIWAN or any other trademark deceptively similar to the trademark • of the plaintiffamountingto infringementand passing ^ off and violation of copyright of the plaintiff in the artwork of their trade/label PAURUSH JIWAN.
(iii) In view of the undertaking given by the defendant, the plaintiff agrees not to press prayer clause 25(b),(c),
(d) and
(e) of the plaint. The defendant has no objection if the decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff in terms of prayer clause 25(a) (i), (ii) and (iii) of the plaint. The defendant undertakes to pay a sum of Rupees One Lac towards the costs and litigation expenses to the plaintiff on or before the date of filing of this application."
¶3The application is supported by the affidavit of one Sh.Gagan Vohra, proprietor of the defendant as well as by Sh.Rabindra Kumar Biswas, Director of the plaintiff company. Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing.
5.
6.
¶7There is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the settlement and there is no impediment in passing a decree in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. I accordingly, decree the suit in terms of the compromise. The terms of settlement shall form the part of the decree. Parties to bear their own cost.
V.K. SHALI, J. JULY 23, 2010 RN A
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.