Allowed

Eastman Auto and Power Limited v. Shreejee Power Systems LLP

Delhi HC15 May 2024CS(COMM)/396/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a consent order resolving a trademark infringement suit. The defendant admitted the plaintiff's rights, agreed to cease using infringing marks, and undertook to file for cancellation and rectification of its registered marks. The suit was decreed on these terms, and the plaintiff withdrew claims for damages and court fee refund.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed on consent: Defendant to cease use of infringing marks and file for cancellation/rectification of registered marks within two weeks. Plaintiff claims for damages and costs given up.

Eastman Auto and Power Limited Vs Shreejee Power Systems… — Intellectual Property | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~38

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 396/2024 & I.As. 11109-11112/2024

¶4

EASTMAN AUTO AND POWER LIMITED ..... Plaintiff

¶5

Through: Mr. Gaurav Sethi, Mr. Anmol Joshi, Mr Deepanshu Chandra, Mr. Anant Bajpai and Mr. Rahul Pawar, Advocates with Mr. Anubrata Saha and Ms. Shagun Sehrawa, ARs.

¶6

versus

¶7

SHREEJEE POWER SYSTEMS LLP ..... Defendant

¶8

Through: Mr. V.K. Puri and Mr. Deepak Dhyani, Advocates.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 15.05.2024

¶11

CS(COMM) 396/2024

¶12

Let the plaint be registered as a suit.

¶13

The Plaintiff, Eastman Auto and Power Ltd., has filed the instant suit seeking protection of their registered trademarks “EASTMAN”,

¶14

“ ”, “ ”, “ ” and other

¶15

formative marks thereof¹ , alleging that the Defendant’s use of the marks

¶16

“EASTON”/ “ ”² amounts to passing off, and thus

¶17

1 Collectively, “EASTMAN Marks”. Details of registration are delineated in Paragraph No. 12 of the plaint.

¶18

2 Collectively, “Impugned Marks”

¶19

Page 1 of 4

¶20

CS(COMM) 396/2024

¶21

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 18/05/2024 at 11:35:09

¶22

registrations thereof under the Trade Marks Act, 1999³ are invalid.

¶23

Issue summons. Mr. V.K. Puri, Advocate, appearing pursuant to receipt of advance service of the plaint, accepts summons on behalf of Defendant. He states that he shall be filing his vakalatnama today itself.

¶24

At the outset, Mr. Puri states that although the Defendant’s Impugned Marks are duly registered, nonetheless, in order to resolve the present suit, he has been authorised to make statement on behalf of Defendant, in line with the communication sent by Defendant to Plaintiff in response to the cease-and-desist notice dated 2^nd February, 2024. Mr. Puri states on instructions that the Defendant does not wish to contest the present proceedings, and accordingly, the Defendant undertakes as follows:

¶25

4.1. Defendant shall permanently cease use of the trademark

¶26

“ ” in association with batteries, inverters, solar

¶27

inverters and stablizers.

¶28

4.2. Defendant also acknowleges Plaintiff’s rights in the trademark “EASTMAN” in respect of the aforenoted goods falling in Class 9.

¶29

4.3. Defendant shall file for cancellation of their registered mark

¶30

“ ” bearing No. 5507332 in Class 11. 4.4. Defendant shall take steps to take down all advertising and

¶31

promotional material depicting the mark “ ” from social media platforms as well as in the market.

¶32

3 “the Act”

¶33

Page 2 of 4

¶34

CS(COMM) 396/2024

¶35

¶36

4.5. Defendant would use the word mark “EASTON”, registerd under No. 5188263 in Class 11, for goods other than batteries, inverters, solar inverters and stablizers. Their current registration, which is in respect of “Apparatus for lighting, heating, steam generating, cooking, refrigerating, drying ventilating, water supply and sanitary purposes” , shall be rectified. Defendant shall file an appropriate application to have the said mark rectified to expressly exclude “batteries, inverters, solar inverters and stablizers” from the goods and services to which the mark is applicable. As and when such an application is moved, the Registrar of Trademarks is requested to process the same expeditiously.

¶37

In light of the aforenoted statement made by Mr. Puri, Mr. Gaurav Sethi, counsel for Plaintiff, on instructions, states that the Plaintiff is agreeable to give up their claim for damages and costs. 6. Accordingly, the suit is decreed binding the Defendant to the statement made by their counsel, as recorded above. Defendant shall file an application for cancellation of the trademark No. 5507332 be filed within a period of two weeks from today. Further, Defendant shall file an appropriate application for rectification of the trademark No. 5188263 within two weeks from today, to get the mark rectified in terms of the aforenoted undertaking given by Mr. Puri.

¶38

Decree sheet be drawn up.

¶39

In view of the fact that the suit is being resolved on consent terms, the request made by counsel for Plaintiff for refund of Court fees is accepted. Registry is directed to issue a certificate for refund of full Court fees, in favour of the Plaintiff.

¶40

With the above directions, the present suit, along with pending

¶41

Page 3 of 4

¶42

CS(COMM) 396/2024

¶43

¶44

applications, is disposed of.

¶45

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶46

MAY 15, 2024 d.negi

¶47

Page 4 of 4

¶48

CS(COMM) 396/2024

¶49

This is a digitally signed order.

¶50

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 18/05/2024 at 11:35:09

Eastman Auto and Power Limited v. Shreejee Power Systems LLP

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Eastman Auto and Power Limited v. Shreejee Power Systems LLP

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

Glaxo Group Limited Vs Anac Healthcare LLP

M/S Jaquar and Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs Yousaf Thottasseri

Greytrix India Private Limited & Anr. Vs Mynd Solutions Private Limited

Flamagas, S.A. & Anr. Vs Gurbachan Singh & Anr.

Ht Media Limited Vs Coolboots Media Private Limited

Oakley Inc. Vs Zuverya Enterprise & Anr.

Kbm Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs Subhash Tayal & Anr.

Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. & Anr. Vs Manufacturer Marketer of Mul Ice Cream through Mr Sanjeet Gulia & Ors.

Glaxo Group Limited Vs Anac Healthcare LLP

Greytrix India Private Limited & Anr. Vs Mynd Solutions Private Limited

Alimentary Health Limited Vs Controller of Patents and Designd

Janssen Pharmaceutica Nv Vs Controller of Patents

Leonhard Kurz Stiftung and Co. Kg Vs Controller of Patents

Parijat Industries India Private Limited Vs Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.