Disposed

Hard Rock Limited v. Hard Rock Inn Private Limited

Delhi HC23 Apr 2024CS(COMM)/23/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The suit was disposed of by consent decree following a settlement where defendants ceased using plaintiff's trademarks, changed their restaurant name, and applied to change their company name. The court directed the preparation of a decree sheet and refund of court fees.

What did the court decide?

Decree drawn up in terms of prayer clauses 33(a) to (d) for trademark cessation and name change; court fees refunded.

Hard Rock Limited Vs Hard Rock Inn Private Limited — Intellectual Property | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~15

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 23/2023 I.A. 5710/2023 I.A. 24863/2023

¶4

HARD ROCK LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Ranjan Narula, Ms. Aishani Singh and Ms. Shivangi Kohli, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

HARD ROCK INN PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Defendant Through: Mr. Manish Kumar, Ms. Aparajita Jha and Ms. Shruti Verma, Advs. for D-1 & 3. (thru VC)

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

¶9

O R D E R % 23.04.2024

¶10

Pursuant to order dated 26^th February 2024, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of Mr. Pawan Pahuja, defendant no.3, who affirms that he is one of the Directors of Defendant no.1 Company and has been duly authorised to file the said affidavit vide Board Resolution dated 21^st March, 2024.

¶11

It is stated that defendants do not dispute rights of plaintiff and are willing to suffer a decree in this regard and are no longer using plaintiff’s trademarks including ‘ HARD ROCK ’, ‘ HARD ROCK HOTEL ’, and ‘ HARD ROCK CAFÉ ’ in relation to restaurant services that defendants were operating. The name of restaurant has been changed to ‘ THE ROSE DREAM ’. The defendants have also made an application for change of name of defendant no.1 from ‘ Hard Rock Inn Pvt. Ltd. ’ to ‘ Rose Dreams Hotel & Resort Pvt. Ltd ’. Copy of the necessary applications to the ROC, Ministry of Company Affairs dated 14^th March 2024 and 18^th March 2024 are appended along with the affidavit. The email and domain name using plaintiff’s mark have also been changed six months back.

¶12

Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate who appears on behalf of defendant

¶13

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 29/04/2024 at 12:31:46

¶14

nos.1 and 3, states that there has been some delay on account of inter se disputes which had transpired between defendant no.2 and 4, for control of defendant no.1 company. These aspects have already been recorded in order of this Court dated 26^th February 2024.

¶15

In view of this affidavit, Mr. Ranjan Narula, counsel for plaintiff seeks a decree in terms of prayer Para 33 (a) to (d); extracted as follows:

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

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 29/04/2024 at 12:31:46

¶18

Accordingly, decree sheet be drawn up in the aforesaid prayer clauses by the Registry.

¶19

Defendant nos.1 and 3 shall be bound by their undertakings. As regards defendant no.2 and 4, it is already stated that they are no longer in control of the company and have tendered their resignations.

¶20

Defendant no.1 shall take all necessary steps to ensure that applications

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

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 29/04/2024 at 12:31:46

¶23

before the ROC are processed expeditiously, within a period of 2 months at best. Defendant no.1 shall provide written communication to counsel for plaintiff in this regard.

¶24

Counsel for plaintiff points out that there are certain stray references to Hard Rock on other sites operated by defendant no.1.

¶25

Counsel for defendant no.1 states although this must be inadvertent, they will take all steps to ensure these are renamed as expeditiously as possible. Confirmation in this regard be given to counsel for plaintiff.

¶26

In view of the above facts and circumstances that the matter has been disposed of on account of settlement between the parties, court fees be refunded to plaintiff through its counsel. Registry is directed accordingly.

¶27

The suit stands disposed of in above terms.

¶28

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶29

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

¶30

ANISH DAYAL, J

¶31

APRIL 23, 2024/sm/sc

¶32

This is a digitally signed order.

¶33

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 29/04/2024 at 12:31:46

Hard Rock Limited v. Hard Rock Inn Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hard Rock Limited v. Hard Rock Inn Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs DREAM7 Entertainment Private Limited and Anr.

Sanjeev Kumar Goel Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Dish Tv India Ltd. Vs Sbl Sales Agency & Ors.

Apnatime Tech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Eloquent Info Solutions Private Limited & Anr.

Star India Private Limited. & Anr. Vs LIVE4WAP.CLICK & Ors.

J. B. Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Mahendra Singh and Anr.

Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs Ireo Victory Valley Private Limited

Star India Private Limited & Anr. Vs Mhdtv.World & Ors.

Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs DREAM7 Entertainment Private Limited and Anr.

Dish Tv India Ltd. Vs Sbl Sales Agency & Ors.

Wyeth Llc Vs the Controllers of Patents

Sandisk Llc & Anr. Vs Mahavishnu Mobile Accessories & Anr.

Star India Private Limited & Anr. Vs Mhdtv.World & Ors.

Wieden+Kennedy India Private Limited Vs Jindal Steel and Power Limited