Disposed

Lumix Domestic Applicances Pvt. Ltd. 20, Industrial Estate, Ambala City, Haryana v. Lumax Industries Ltd. 2ND Floor, Harbans Bhavan-Ii, Nangalraya Business Centre,New Delhi

Delhi HC19 Jan 2024C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM)/93/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Trade mark opposition dispute settled between appellant and first respondent. Appellant restricted use of 'LUMIX' to specified Class 11 goods and undertook non-overlap; respondent withdrew its opposition DEL-187131. Court recorded the settlement, treated the opposition as withdrawn, allowed the application for registration with amended specifications.

What did the court decide?

Opposition DEL-187131 treated as withdrawn; application no. 1078334 to proceed for registration with amended specifications of goods.

Lumix Domestic Applicances Pvt. Ltd. 20, Industrial… — Intellectual Property | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~7

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 93/2022

¶4

LUMIX DOMESTIC APPLICANCES PVT LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. M.K. Miglani, Mr. Akash Singh and Mr. Hardik Gogia, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

LUMAX INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR ..... Respondents

¶7

Through: Mr. Kunal Vats and Mr. Rohan Swarup, Advocates.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶10

O R D E R % 19.01.2024

¶11

I.A. No.……/2024 (To be Numbered) (u/Order XXIII Rule 3 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, [hereinafter ‘CPC’])

¶12

Counsel for parties state that they have settled their disputes which form the subject matter of the present appeal. An application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“ CPC ”), bringing the terms of the settlement on record, has been filed vide diary no. 96215/2024 on 16^th January, 2024. A copy thereof has been handed over across the board and is taken on record.

¶13

Registry is directed to allocate a number to the aforenoted application.

¶14

The present appeal was preferred against order dated 18^th June, 2015 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks allowing the opposition no.

¶15

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 02:47:19

¶16

DEL/187131 to Appellant’s trademark application no. 1078334 in Class 11 for registration of trademark ‘LUMIX’.

¶17

During the pendency of the present appeal, the parties have resolved and settled their disputes on the terms stipulated in paragraph no. 2 of the application, which delineated as under:

¶18

“(i) That the Appellant has agreed to restrict the use of its trademark to goods read as “installations for Heating, Steam Generating, Refrigeration purposes including fans, coolers, Geysers, Toasters, Ovens, Stoves" in class 11, thereby distinguishing its goods in every possible manner from the goods of Respondent No. 1. That the Appellant has already filed a TM-16 dated 15.01.2007 to amend the specification of goods to the said effect.

¶19

(ii) That the Appellant undertakes that apart from the subject matter trademark application bearing no. '1078334', it has not filed any other application for registration of the mark 'LUMIX' or any other mark which is either identical or deceptively similar to the Respondent No. 1's trademark being 'LUMAX' under Class 11 in respect of installation for lighting or any other class of goods which is overlapping with the goods of Respondent No.1.

¶20

(iii) That the Appellant undertakes not to venture, at any point in time, into any goods except "Installations for Heating, Steam Generating, Cooking, Refrigeration purposes including fans, coolers, Geysers, Toasters, Ovens, Stoves" under the mark Lumix or any other mark which is either identical or deceptively similar to the Respondent No. 1's trademark being 'LUMAX'.

¶21

(iv) That the Appellant also has registrations over the mark "LUMIX" in Class 7 bearing no. 507365 & 1078332; Class 9 bearing number 1078333; and Class 21 bearing number 1078335. That the Appellant further undertakes that even in the said Classes i.e. 7, 9 and 21, it shall not venture into any goods or services that may overlap with the goods and services of Respondent No.1 especially in the field of Automobiles and parts thereof, under the mark LUMIX or any other mark which is either identical or deceptively similar to the Respondent No. 1's trademark being 'LUMAX';

¶22

(v) That the Respondent No. 1 in consideration of the foregoing admissions and undertakings of the appellant, withdraws its opposition being opposition no. DEL- 187131 to the Appellant's

¶23

¶24

mark 'LUMIX' having application no. 1078334 in Class 11.”

¶25

In light of the above, the parties jointly pray that the present appeal be disposed of, recording the terms of the settlement treating the opposition of Respondent No. 1 as withdrawn and the application of the Appellant to proceed for registration in respect of amended specifications of goods.

¶26

The aforenoted request is allowed and the application is disposed of.

¶27

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 93/2022

¶28

In light of the order passed in application above (to be numbered), the present appeal is disposed of.

¶29

The afore-mentioned terms of the settlement between the parties are taken on record. The opposition of Respondent No. 1 bearing no. DEL187131, is treated as withdrawn. Appellant’s application no. 1078334 shall proceed for registration in respect of the amended specifications of goods mentioned in the application.

¶30

A copy of this order be communicated to the Trade Mark Registry at [email protected].

¶31

Disposed of.

¶32

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶33

JANUARY 19, 2024 as

¶34

Lumix Domestic Applicances Pvt. Ltd. 20, Industrial Estate, Ambala City, Haryana v. Lumax Industries Ltd. 2ND Floor, Harbans Bhavan-Ii, Nangalraya Business Centre,New Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lumix Domestic Applicances Pvt. Ltd. 20, Industrial Estate, Ambala City, Haryana v. Lumax Industries Ltd. 2ND Floor, Harbans Bhavan-Ii, Nangalraya Business Centre,New Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Sos Oil Seals Private Limited Vs M/S Super Seals India Limited

Developer Group India Private Limited Vs the Registrar of Trade Marks

Mankind Pharma Limited Vs Rajinder Singh Trading as Herbal Health Solutions and Anr.

Woco Industrictechnik Gmbh Vs Registrar of Trademarks

Om Saai Agro and Foodworks Private Limited Vs Yash Pal Bhandari T as Amar Foods India & Anr.

Bennett, Coleman and Company Limited Vs Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications Ab and Anr.