Disposed

Adani Wilmar Ltd. v. Emami Agrotech Limited & Ors.

Delhi HC16 Feb 2024CS(COMM)/174/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suit over an allegedly infringing advertisement was settled through court-annexed mediation. Defendant No.1 agreed to discontinue the impugned advertisement and not republish it; plaintiff dropped defendants 2 and 3. Decree drawn in terms of settlement, suit disposed of, 50% court fee refunded.

What did the court decide?

Decree in terms of settlement dated 02.01.2024; defendant no.1 to discontinue impugned advertisement; 50% court fee refund to plaintiff.

Adani Wilmar Ltd. Vs Emami Agrotech Limited & Ors. — Intellectual Property | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~31

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 174/2023

¶4

ADANI WILMAR LTD

¶5

..... Plaintiff

¶6

Through: Mr. Dushyant K. Mahant & Ms. Shivani G. Mahant, Advs.

¶7

versus

¶8

EMAMI AGROTECH LIMITED & ORS. ..... Defendants

¶9

Through: Mr. Aman Goyal, Adv. for D-1 (thru VC)

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

% 16.02.2024

¶13

It is informed by the counsel for the parties that the matter stands settled between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 through facilitation of Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre.

¶14

Defendant nos.2 and 3, which are newspaper publications, have since been dropped from the array of parties and counsel for the plaintiff, states on instructions, that they are not pressing any relief against them.

¶15

The settlement agreement dated 2^nd January, 2024 recorded between the parties before Mediation Centre has been filed on record and has been signed duly by authorised representatives of both the parties and their respective counsels.

¶16

The terms of settlement are contained in para A to E of the said agreement.

¶17

“A. The Defendant No. I has discontinued publishing/broadcasting

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

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 21/02/2024 at 14:40:39

¶20

the impugned advertisement mentioned in the suit and shall further not publish, broadcast, print or show the impugned advertisement in any other media in the future. In view thereof, the Plaintiff does not wish to pursue the claims in the instant suit. The settlement is limited and restricted only to the impugned advertisement.

¶21

B. This settlement is without prejudice to the rights of either of the parties to proceed against the other if they have objections to any other advertising campaigns.

¶22

C. The parties shall bear their respective costs.

¶23

D. The Defendant No. I (EAL) is at liberty to publish/broadcast below mentioned specific design of PET bottle for comparison in the future advertisement and further undertakes to abide by the above terms of Settlement Agreement.

¶24

E. The parties pray for a decree and judgment in the above suit in terms of this Settlement Agreement.”

¶25

Court has perused the terms of agreement and finds the same to be acceptable and lawful. Accordingly, decree be drawn up in terms of above settlement.

¶26

Parties shall remain bound with the same.

¶27

Since nothing survives for adjudication, the suit stands disposed of.

¶28

Pending applications, if any, are disposed of infructuous.

¶29

9. In view of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 50% of the court fee is directed to be refunded to the plaintiff.

¶30

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

¶31

ANISH DAYAL, J

¶32

FEBRUARY 16, 2024/sm

¶33

This is a digitally signed order.

¶34

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 21/02/2024 at 14:40:39

Adani Wilmar Ltd. v. Emami Agrotech Limited & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adani Wilmar Ltd. v. Emami Agrotech Limited & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Zed Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. Vs Hardik Mukeshbhai Pansheriya & Ors.

Louis Vuitton Malletier Vs M/S Capichino/Capture & Ors.

Rica S.P.A Vs M/S. Skin Safe Industries through Its Sole Proprietor & Ors.

Jockey International Inc. Vs M/S Femi & Ors.

Bajaj Finance Limited Vs Kiran Udyog Private Limited

Ankush Arora Vs Dhairya Kathuria & Anr.

Lilly Icos Llc Vs Okasa Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Joy Creators LLP Vs Mr. Badri Gupta and Anr.

A.K. Al Muhaidib and Sons Vs Chaman Lal Sachdeva and Anr.

Zed Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. Vs Hardik Mukeshbhai Pansheriya & Ors.

Nektar Therapeutics Vs Controller of Patents

Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited Vs Sain Medicaments Pvt. Ltd.

Shri Dhiraj Kumar Vs R H Agro Overseas Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Triumphant Institute of Management Education Pvt. Ltd. Vs Times Coaching Centre