Dismissed

Sansha Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. M/S United House

Delhi HC27 May 2024CS(COMM)/1176/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a suit for trademark infringement and passing off, parties reached a mutual understanding. The defendant undertook to cease use and not use deceptively similar marks. The suit was withdrawn under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC with liberty to institute a fresh suit upon breach. Plaintiff's request for 50% court fee refund was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Suit permitted to be withdrawn under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC with liberty to institute fresh suit on breach; 50% court fee refund allowed.

Sansha Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs M/S… — Intellectual Property | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~6

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 1176/2016 & I.A. 10408/2016, I.A. 625/2017

¶4

SANSHA HOSPITALITY SERVICES PVT LTD & ANR

¶5

..... Plaintiffs

¶6

Through: Mr. Manav Gupta, Mr. Sahil Garg, Mr. Ankit Gupta, Mr. Abhinav Jain, Mr. Mithil Malhotra and Ms. Samiksha Jain, Advocates.

¶7

versus

¶8

M/S UNITED HOUSE ..... Defendant

¶9

Through: Ms. Anukriti Pareek, Advocate.

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 27.05.2024

¶12

Plaintiffs, registered proprietor of the trademark “SEVENSEAS’ (design/logo) and its formative marks, has filed the present suit alleging infringement and passing off of their mark by Defendant by use of an identical mark.

¶13

Counsel for both parties jointly inform that the parties have arrived at a mutual understanding in respect of their disputes, and the suit can be resolved on that basis. Ms. Anukriti Pareek, counsel for Defendant, states that although there is no injunction, the Defendant has ceased use of the impugned mark. The Defendant further undertakes to not use the impugned mark or any other mark deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ trademark, any time in the future.

¶14

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 29/05/2024 at 11:46:58

¶15

The statement made by counsel for Defendant is taken on record, and Defendant is held bound by the same.

¶16

In light of the above, counsel for Plaintiffs states that he does not wish to press for the relief of damages or any other reliefs sought in the present suit, and basis the parties’ agreement, he states that the Plaintiffs wish to withdraw the present suit. He, however, submits that if at a later point of time, the Defendant is found to be in breach of the undertaking noted above, the Plaintiffs shall reserve their right to take appropriate action by filing a fresh suit, in accordance with law.

¶17

Considering the statements made by the counsel for parties, the present suit is permitted to be withdrawn under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with liberty to the Plaintiffs to institute a fresh suit in respect of subject matter of the present suit, in case Defendant is found to be in breach of the undertaking given by them.

¶18

Dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as aforesaid.

¶19

In view of the fact that suit is being resolved on the basis of an amicable settlement between parties, counsel for Plaintiffs’ request for refund of 50% of court fee is allowed. Registry is directed to issue a certificate for refund of 50% court fee, in favour of the Plaintiffs.

¶20

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶21

MAY 27, 2024 d.negi

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

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 29/05/2024 at 11:46:58

Sansha Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. M/S United House

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sansha Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. M/S United House

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dabur India Limited Vs Goodluck Ayurveda Private Limited

Red Bull Ag Vs Vandana Chetankumar Maraviya Trading as Vandana Beverages & Ors.

Banyan Tree Holdings Limited Vs Akash Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Mankind Pharma Limited Vs Allkind Healthcare & Anr.

Sony Music Entertainment India Private Limited & Ors. Vs YT1S.COM, YT1S.PRO, YT1S.DE & Ors.

Bayer Ag & Anr. Vs Marico Limited

Quantum Page Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Telegram Fz Llc & Ors.

Asian Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs Yes Bank Ltd.

Dabur India Limited Vs Goodluck Ayurveda Private Limited

Red Bull Ag Vs Vandana Chetankumar Maraviya Trading as Vandana Beverages & Ors.

Banyan Tree Holdings Limited Vs Akash Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Sanofi India Limited Vs Bullford World Limited & Anr.

1. Star Television Productions Limited & Anr. Vs 1. Eurosport & Ors.

Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. Vs Microcosm Pharma & Ors.