Allowed

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

Delhi HC24 Apr 2024CS(COMM)/264/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court, in a trademark infringement suit over 'BIZFER' vs 'VIZFER', recorded a settlement between parties. The court decreed the suit based on terms where defendants ceased using the infringing mark, surrendered infringing materials, and paid compensation, while allowing the injunction suit.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed in favour of Plaintiff on terms of compromise; suit disposed of; certificate for refund of court fee issued.

J. B. Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Mahendra… — Intellectual Property | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~27

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 264/2023, I.A. 8404/2023

¶4

J. B. CHEMICALS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LTD..... Plaintiff

¶5

Through: Mr. Prithvi Gulati, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

MAHENDRA SINGH AND ANR ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Mahendra Singh, Defendant No. 1 in person. Mr. Deepak, Defendant No. 2 in person.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 24.04.2024 CS(COMM) 264/2023 & I.A. No. 8893/2024 ( u/Order XXIII Rule 3 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)

¶11

The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff to prevent infringement of their trademark “BIZFER” by the Defendants, who use the mark “VIZFER”. During the course of proceedings, the parties have settled their disputes and through this application, they jointly pray for a compromise decree under Order XXIII Rule 3 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on terms enumerated in paragraph No. 5 of the application. 2. The application is duly supported by affidavits of the Authorised Representatives of Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 and Defendant No. 1. The compromise is also confirmed by Defendants appearing in person. 3. The Court has perused the terms of the compromise and finds the same to be lawful. As per the agreed terms, Defendants have ceased the use

¶12

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 14:13:59

¶13

of the impugned mark “VIZFER” and have undertaken not to adopt any mark similar to the Plaintiff’s “BIZFER”. As per condition specified in paragraph No. 5(e) of the application, the Defendants have handed over demand drafts of Rs. 40,000/- each to the Plaintiff’s counsel.

¶14

The Defendants have also consented to suffer a decree of permanent injunction as sought in paragraph No. 31(a) and (b) of the plaint. In view of Defendants’ undertaking, the Plaintiff has agreed to give up the reliefs claimed in paragraph No. 31(d), (e) and (f) of the plaint. Insofar as prayer contained paragraph No. 31(c) is concerned, as per terms specified in paragraph No. 5(d) of the application, the Defendants have undertaken to destroy all the infringing advertising and promotional material.

¶15

Accordingly, the suit is decreed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants in terms of paragraph No. 31(a) and (b) of the plaint read along with the terms of compromise recorded in paragraph No. 5 of the application, which shall form part of the decree.

¶16

The parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise as recorded in the application.

¶17

The suit is decreed in the above terms. Decree sheet be drawn up.

¶18

In view of the fact that parties have arrived at a compromise, the Registry is directed to issue a certificate for refund of court fee in favour of the Plaintiff.

¶19

With the above directions, the suit along with pending applications is disposed of.

¶20

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶21

APRIL 24, 2024/ sapna

¶22

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Hard Rock Limited Vs Hard Rock Inn Private Limited

Heifer Project International Vs Heifer Project India Trust

Itc Limited Vs Ms. Samita Bhatia Proprietor S.S. Enterprises

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

Reliance Industries Limited & Anr. Vs Quikr India Pvt. Ltd.

Jockey International Inc. Vs M/S Khalsa Accessories & Ors.

Mrs. Rinku Manaktala & Ors. Vs Mr. Vikas Manaktala & Anr.

J.K. Tyre and Industries Limited Vs Michelin India Private Limited 7 Anr.

Punam Flutes Vs Mahesh Chand Gupta and Anr.

Heifer Project International Vs Heifer Project India Trust

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

Shree Ganesh Rolling Mills (India) Ltd. Vs M/S Jindal Rolling Mill Ltd.

Reliance Industries Limited & Anr. Vs Quikr India Pvt. Ltd.

J.K. Tyre and Industries Limited Vs Michelin India Private Limited 7 Anr.