Allowed

Honeywell International Inc. v. Mr Harish Kantilal Bhogi & Ors.

Delhi HC4 Nov 2016CS(COMM)/599/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Onsted hearing on a suit for trademark infringement where defendants agreed to relinquish rights and cease use. Court decreed suit on original terms excluding damages and accounts, confirmed ex parte interim injunction, and ordered refund of court fee.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed on terms of original plaint minus damages and rendition of accounts; interim injunction confirmed; refund of court fee granted.

Honeywell International Inc. Vs Mr Harish Kantilal Bhogi… — Intellectual Property | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~17.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 599/2016

¶4

% Judgment dated 04.11.2016 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC ..... Plaintiff Through : Mr.Siddhant, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

MR HARISH KANTILAL BHOGI & ORS ..... Defendants Through : Mr.Vikas Nagwan and Ms.Manvi Rajvanshi, Advs.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI

¶9

G.S.SISTANI, J ( ORAL )

¶10

Plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark passing off, unfair competition, rendition of accounts, dilution, delivery up, damages, etc.

¶11

The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademark, ‘Honeywell’, which was first adopted by the plaintiff in the year 1906. The trademark of the plaintiff, Honeywell, is an arbitrary mark, without any meaning in common parlance nor any meaning specific to the trade, except denoting the plaintiff’s goods and services.

¶12

It is the case of the plaintiff that consumers across the world associate the trademark, Honeywell, exclusively with the plaintiff. The plaint details the worldwide use and promotion of the trademark ‘Honeywell’ by the plaintiff and the extent of its business. The plaintiff has also extracted details with regard to the awards conferred on the plaintiff and the amount spent by the plaintiff on advertisement/promotion of its business to show that the mark of the plaintiff is a well-known mark.

¶13

CS(COMM) 599/2016

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

The present suit was filed by the plaintiff after it learnt that the defendant was intending to infringe the trademark of the plaintiff by using an identical trademark Honeywell.

¶16

While issuing summons/notice in the suit/application on 16.10.2015, this Court had passed ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Counsel for the defendants had entered appearance on 18.3.2016.

¶17

Today, learned counsel for the defendants, on instructions, submits that the defendants have already addressed an email to the plaintiff communicating that they do not intend to use the trademark, Honeywell, which is a registered trademark of the plaintiff and the defendants are willing to relinquish their right in the trademark applied for in Class 21 in favour of the plaintiff, provided the plaintiff gives up its relief of damages and rendition of accounts. Counsel for the defendants also submits that no product/material with the trademark, Honeywell, was produced by the defendants nor any stationery item, boxes, etc. were used and in case any material is available with the mark, Honeywell, the same shall be destroyed within two weeks from today.

¶18

Accordingly, as prayed, present suit stands decreed in terms of para 43(i) of the plaint and the submission made by counsel for the defendants in Court today. Plaintiff gives up its relief of damages and rendition of accounts. Defendants shall be bound by the statement made by the counsel in Court today. Let a decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.

¶19

Since the matter has been resolved through mediation of the Court, the plaintiff shall be entitled to refund of Court fee. Let an appropriate certificate be issued to the plaintiff.

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

CS(COMM) 599/2016

¶22

I.A. 22071/2015 (O XXXIX R 1 & 2 CPC)

¶23

Interim order dated 16.10.2015 stands confirmed.

¶24

Application stands disposed of.

¶25

G.S.SISTANI, J

¶26

NOVEMBER 04, 2016

¶27

msr

¶28

Page 3 of 3

¶29

CS(COMM) 599/2016

Honeywell International Inc. v. Mr Harish Kantilal Bhogi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Honeywell International Inc. v. Mr Harish Kantilal Bhogi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Zydus Wellness Limited Vs Nutritious Foods & Spreads & Ors.

Harish Kumar Vs Satish Kumar Malhotra

Disney Enterprises ,Inc & Anr. Vs Rekha & Anr.

The Singer Company Vs Mohammed Fayaz

M/S Appolo Equipments Pvt.Ltd. Vs Smt Rashmi Juneja & Ors.

M/S Ankur Properties Pvt.Ltd. Vs Sh Ravinder Kumar Juneja & Ors.

M/S Mohan Meakin Limited Vs M/S High Brew International Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Mrj Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Ankur Property Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Zydus Wellness Limited Vs Nutritious Foods & Spreads & Ors.

Harish Kumar Vs Satish Kumar Malhotra

President & Fellows of Harv and College Vs Shri Rajesh Goyal

Shri Adarsh Arora Vs Smt Sudha Pawa & Anr.

Mobile Telesystems Ojsc & Anr. Vs Harish & Anr.

Flamagas, S a Vs Mahadev & Ors.