Allowed

Seagate Technology Llc v. Cubicor Information Systems Private Limited and Ors.

Delhi HC20 Nov 2024CS(COMM)/335/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court disposed of a suit for trademark infringement and prohibited sale of end-of-life HDDs. Upon parties reaching a settlement, the court decreed the suit to the plaintiff per settlement terms and ordered refund of court fees.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed in favour of plaintiff against defendant no.1 in terms of settlement agreement; Court Fees refunded.

Seagate Technology Llc Vs Cubicor Information Systems… — Intellectual Property | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~30

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 335/2024 & I.A. 45628/2024

¶4

SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Ranjan Narula, Mr. Shakti Priyan Nair, Mr. Parth Bajaj, Adv. (Through VC) versus

¶5

CUBICOR INFORMATION SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS. .....Defendants Through: Ms. Bhumika Aggarwal, Adv. for D-1 (Through VC)

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶8

O R D E R % 20.11.2024

¶9

I.A. 45628/2024 (Application under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”))

¶10

The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff and defendant no.1 under Order XXIII Rule 3, read with Section 151 of CPC. 2. The present suit has been instituted to protect the plaintiff’s statutory and common law rights in the registered trademark SEAGATE,

¶11

. Further, the plaintiff seeks to prohibit the illegal and unauthorized use of the plaintiff’s Hard Disk Drives (“HDD”) bearing

¶12

their renowned mark SEAGATE, by the defendant no.1, in relation to unlawfully importing, stocking, supplying, and selling

¶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 02/07/2025 at 14:28:41

¶14

end-of-life HDD of the plaintiff, which are not meant for resale.

¶15

It is submitted that during the pendency of the present proceedings, the plaintiff and defendant no.1 have arrived at a settlement, terms of which are given in paragraph 3 of the present application.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for the parties confirm the terms of the settlement and pray that the suit be decreed, in terms thereof.

¶17

The Court has perused the terms of the settlement and finds the same to be lawful.

¶18

In terms of the settlement, the defendant no.1 has acknowledged and recognized that the plaintiff is the proprietor of its well-known trademark

¶19

SEAGATE, . The defendant no.1 has undertaken that the defendant no.1, its directors, partners, servants, agents, etc. have stopped and agree not to, at any time in the future, engage in importing, stocking, supplying and selling, in any manner, including, online sale or deal in plaintiff’s end-of-life SEAGATE HDD or any other products under the

¶20

plaintiff’s trademark SEAGATE, that are end-oflife, second hand, refurbished, unsupported by warranty or not meant for consumer retail.

¶21

Accordingly, the present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.1 in terms of the settlement agreement, terms of which are reproduced in paragraph 3 of the present application, which shall form part of the decree.

¶22

The parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the settlement.

¶23

¶24

In view of the fact that parties have arrived at a settlement, the Registry is directed to issue a certificate for refund of full Court Fees in favour of the plaintiff.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is a foreign company, and refund be granted through its counsel.

¶26

Accordingly, it is directed that the refund of Court Fees shall be payable to the plaintiff, through its counsel, Mr. Ranjan Narula, Advocate.

¶27

Decree sheet be drawn up.

¶28

The suit along with the pending application, stands disposed of.

¶29

Next dates of hearing, i.e., 06^th December, 2024 and 10^th December, 2024, stand cancelled.

¶30

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶31

NOVEMBER 20, 2024/kr

¶32

Seagate Technology Llc v. Cubicor Information Systems Private Limited and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seagate Technology Llc v. Cubicor Information Systems Private Limited and Ors.

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

Sun Hydraulics Llc Vs Sun Hydraulics Private Limited

L Oreal Vs M/S Fashion Hub & Anr.

Tips Industries Limited Vs Glance Digital Expererience & Ors.

M/S Dart Industries Inc. & Anr. Vs M/S Techno Plast and Ors. Cd+

Amit Kumar Thakur Vs Pankaj Kumar Prajapati and Ors.

Allfine Industries Private Limited & Ors. & Ors. Vs Allfine Global Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. Vs Verizon Global & Ors.

Reza Daru Pars Company & Ors. Vs Nani Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Anrs

M/S Suparshva Swabs I Limited Vs the Registrar of Trademarks & Anr.

M/S Dart Industries Inc. & Anr. Vs M/S Techno Plast and Ors. Cd+

Ram Ji Prasad Vs Raj Kumar Maurya and Anr.

M/S M.H. One Tv Network Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Mh 7 News and Anr.

Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited & Anr. Vs Naturo Indiabull Limited

Association of Approved and Classifide Hotels of Kerala Vs Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. and Anr.