Allowed

Filmtec Corporation v. D Rathnakala

Delhi HC22 May 2024CS(COMM)/55/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissed: The court disposed of a trademark infringement suit where the defendant offered an amicable settlement of INR 50,000/-, which the plaintiff accepted, leading to a decree on specific prayers and a refund of court fees.

What did the court decide?

Decree granted in terms of Prayer Clauses A (i) to (iv) and B (iii); Defendant to pay INR 50,000/-; Court fees refunded to Plaintiff.

Filmtec Corporation Vs D Rathnakala — Intellectual Property | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~6

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 55/2022, I.A. 16394/2023

¶4

FILMTEC CORPORATION ..... Plaintiff

¶5

Through: Ms. Prakriti Varshney, Advocate with Mr. Prashant, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

D RATHNAKALA ..... Defendant

¶8

Through: Mr. Devesh Khanduri, Advocate with Mr. K.V. Bala Krishnan and Mr. Satish, Advocate.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

% 22.05.2024 1. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit alleging that the Defendant is, inter alia, manufacturing, marketing, selling and dealing in counterfeit RO (reverse osmosis) membranes bearing the Plaintiffs’ registered trademark “FITMTEC”.

¶13

On 21^st January, 2022, while issuing summons, the Court also granted an ad-interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff, injuncting the Defendant from selling any products under the Plaintiff’s trademark. Further, Local Commissioners were appointed to visit the Defendant’s premises and report on the infringing activities. The Local Commissioner did not find any infringing products at the premises, but only invoices/ documents and electronic data which indicated that the Defendant was indulging in the sale of counterfeit products, as alleged.

¶14

The Defendant has not filed any written statement or documents. However, counsel for Defendants argues that they were not aware that the

¶15

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 15:35:55

¶16

products being sold by them were counterfeit and had immediately, on being informed about the present suit, stopped dealing in the products which bear the Plaintiff’s mark. He submits that the counterfeit products were procured from third party distributors, and states that the Defendant has extended full cooperation to the Plaintiff by disclosing the sources from which they had procured the counterfeit products.

¶17

Furthermore, counsel for Defendant states, on instructions, that the Defendant has no objection in case the suit is decreed against them in terms of Prayer Clauses No. A (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv), and No. B (iii). As regards the claim of damages and accounts of profits is concerned, the Defendant offers to make a payment of INR 50,000/- to the Plaintiff as a compensatory amount. Counsel for Plaintiff, on instructions, states that the payment offered by the Defendant is acceptable towards resolution of the monetary claims made in the present suit.

¶18

In view of the above, the suit is decreed in terms of Paragraphs No. A (i) to (iv) and B (iii) of the plaint. Defendant is also directed pay an amount of INR 50,000/- to the Plaintiff. None of other prayers are being pressed.

¶19

Since the matter is being resolved on amicable terms, Plaintiff’s request for refund of the court fees, is allowed. The Registry is directed to issue certification for refund of court fees to the Plaintiff’s counsel, which shall then be forwarded and remitted to the Plaintiff.

¶20

With the aforesaid, the suit is disposed of along with pending application.

¶21

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶22

MAY 22, 2024/ sapna

¶23

Filmtec Corporation v. D Rathnakala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Filmtec Corporation v. D Rathnakala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chrysalis Realty Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Sattvam India Ventures Private Limited & Ors.

Portronics Digital Private Limited Vs Tania Ghosh & Ors.

Sumita Rani Prop.Thukral Mech. Works Vs Nitin Machines Tools and Ors.

Amanpreet Kohli Vs Pankaj Dayal

Dabur India Limited Vs Goodluck Ayurveda Private Limited

Red Bull Ag Vs Vandana Chetankumar Maraviya Trading as Vandana Beverages & Ors.

Banyan Tree Holdings Limited Vs Akash Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Mankind Pharma Limited Vs Allkind Healthcare & Anr.

Sh Raj Kumar Saraf Proprietor M/S Bindal Food Products Vs M/S Alka Ayurvedic Pvt. Ltd.

Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs Cactus Pharmaceuticals Private Limited and Others

Spykar Lifestyles Private Limited Vs Shyam Plastic Industries & Ors.

Hewlett-Packard Development Comapny & Ors. Vs Suresh Parab & Anr.

Dabur India Limited Vs Goodluck Ayurveda Private Limited

Red Bull Ag Vs Vandana Chetankumar Maraviya Trading as Vandana Beverages & Ors.