Disposed

Marion Biotech Pvt. Ltd. v. Pharmison Valentes Pharma Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi HC19 Sept 2024CS(COMM)/645/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court disposed of a trademark suit after the parties filed a joint application seeking decree based on a Settlement Agreement. The Court found the agreement lawful, decreed the suit in its terms, and directed the refund of court fees.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed in terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 03 September, 2024; Certificate of refund of full Court Fees issued.

Marion Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pharmison… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~19

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CS(COMM) 645/2021 & I.A. Nos. 16486/2021, 16487/2021,

¶4

5024/2022 & 39851/2024

¶5

MARION BIOTECH PVT. LTD. .....Plaintiff

¶6

Through: Mr. Vivek Singh with Mr. Anuj Mirdha and Mr. Onkar Nath, Advocates. (M): 9718967020 Email: [email protected]

¶7

versus

¶8

PHARMISON VALENTES PHARMA PVT. LTD. .....Defendant Through: Mr. Rishabh Singhle with Mr. Shrijeeb Biswas, Ms. Kavya Agrawal and Mr. Sujoy Chatterjee, Advocates. (M): 8107012169 Email: [email protected]

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶10

O R D E R % 19.09.2024

¶11

I.A. No. 39851/2024 (Joint application on behalf of plaintiff and defendant)

¶12

The present is a joint application filed on behalf of the plaintiff and defendant under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”).

¶13

The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking a permanent

¶14

CS(COMM) 645/2021 Page 1 of 3

¶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 30/09/2024 at 11:54:58

¶16

injunction restraining the defendant from passing off of the trademark ‘BMD RISE’, and for damages, rendition of accounts and delivery up. 3. It is submitted that the plaintiff and the defendant have settled their dispute by way of Settlement Agreement dated 03^rd September, 2024, copy of which has been attached along with the present application.

¶17

Learned counsels appearing for the parties appear before this Court and submit that the suit be decreed in terms of the Settlement Agreement rd dated 03 September, 2024, executed between the parties.

¶18

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

¶19

As per the Settlement Agreement dated 03^rd September, 2024, an amount of ₹6,00,000/ - is payable by the defendant to the plaintiff, in the manner, as given in the Settlement Agreement. The defendant has undertaken not to use the mark in terms of the order dated 25^th January, 2024 passed by this Court in the present suit.

¶20

In terms of the settlement, the defendant has also undertaken that it will not manufacture, sell, distribute, supply, market, export, import, advertise or do any act or deal in any manner, which may infringe, pass off or usurp the goodwill created by the plaintiff’s registered trademark ‘BMD RISE’.

¶21

Accordingly, the suit is decreed in terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 03^rd September, 2024, which shall form part of the decree.

¶22

Let the decree sheet be drawn up.

¶23

In view of the fact that the parties have entered into a settlement, the Registry is directed to issue a Certificate of refund of full Courts Fees in favour of the plaintiff.

¶24

CS(COMM) 645/2021 Page 2 of 3

¶25

¶26

Accordingly, the present suit is disposed of, along with the pending applications.

¶27

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶28

SEPTEMBER 19, 2024

¶29

¶30

CS(COMM) 645/2021 Page 3 of 3

¶31

Marion Biotech Pvt. Ltd. v. Pharmison Valentes Pharma Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Marion Biotech Pvt. Ltd. v. Pharmison Valentes Pharma Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Polotrips India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Karnataka Bank Limted & Ors.

Nandi Infratech P. Ltd. Vs Himanshu Bhandari & Ors.

Omirico Limited & Anr. Vs Pjsc Sberbank & Anr.

Skoda Auto a S Vs Mr Virender Yadav Trading as Super Cool Trading Co. and Sheetal Enterprises & Anr.

Pioneer Overseas Corporation Vs M/S Evercrop Agro Science & Anr.

Prj Family Private Trust & Ors. Vs Raseel Gujral Ansal & Ors.

Sunil Mittal & Anr. Vs Mohammad Hanif Khan

Ms Robert Bosch Gmbh Vs Mrs Rosy Sethi

Nandi Infratech P. Ltd. Vs Himanshu Bhandari & Ors.

Avon Cycles Ltd. Vs Manish Raj Goyal and Anr.

Skoda Auto a S Vs Mr Virender Yadav Trading as Super Cool Trading Co. and Sheetal Enterprises & Anr.

Mannan R Datta Vs Registrar Trademarks

Kalyani Innerwear Private Limited Vs Sunny Trading Co. & Anr.

Mankind Pharma Limited Vs Chandra Mani Tiwari & Anr.