Dismissed

Itv Studios Netherlands Content B v. Vs Voice of Mithila

Delhi HC15 Oct 2024CS(COMM)/661/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi, in an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, disposed of a suit for trademark infringement after the parties reached a settlement wherein the defendant acknowledged infringement and agreed to withdraw its trademark application.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed based on settlement; defendant directed to withdraw Trademark Application No. 4825207; court fees refunded to plaintiff.

Itv Studios Netherlands Content B v Vs Voice of Mithila — Intellectual Property | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~33

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 661/2022, I.A. 15588/2022 & I.A. 41360/2024

¶4

ITV STUDIOS NETHERLANDS CONTENT B V .....Plaintiff

¶5

Through: Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra, Mr. Ishith Arora and Mr. Rajatdeep Sharma, Advs. M: 9654451996 Email: [email protected]

¶6

versus

¶7

VOICE OF MITHILA .....Defendant Through: Mr. Kashish, Adv. M: 8799771388 Email: [email protected]

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶9

O R D E R % 15.10.2024

¶10

I.A. 41360/2024 (Application under Order XXIII Rule 3)

¶11

The present application has been filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”).

¶12

The present suit had been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for inter alia restraining the defendant, its promoters, directors, assignees, relatives, successors-in-interest, licensees, franchisees, partners, representatives, servants, distributors, employees, agents, etc. or anyone

¶13

CS(COMM) 661/2022

¶14

Page 1 of 5

¶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 16:08:49

¶16

associated with it, from using the mark or any other marks, identical to or deceptively similar to or containing the plaintiff’s registered trade/service mark/artwork THE VOICE/

¶17

any manner whatsoever, so as to infringe the same.

¶18

Vide order dated 22^nd September, 2022, an ad interim ex-parte injunction was passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, by way of which, the defendant was restrained from making use of the mark

¶19

VOICE/ in relation to its business/services.

¶20

During the pendency of the proceedings in the instant suit, the parties have agreed to amicably resolve the present dispute, on the terms and conditions, which are set out in paragraph 3 of the present application.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

Further, this Court records that the application being I.A. 41648/2024 of the plaintiff, to substitute the authorized representative of the plaintiff, has

CS(COMM) 661/2022

Page 2 of 5

been allowed vide order dated 08^th October, 2024. 8. As per the terms of the settlement, the defendant has expressly acknowledged that the plaintiff is the exclusive lawful proprietor of the trade/service marks/art works THE VOICE /

¶28

and/or variants thereof, including their stylization and artwork.

¶29

Further, in terms of the settlement, the defendant has acknowledged that it understands that the offending use of the marks VOICE/VOICE OF

¶30

MITHILA/ amounts to infringement and/or passing off of the plaintiff’s marks. Further, the defendant has undertaken to discontinue and cease all use of the infringing mark and/or any other deceptive variations thereof, identical with or deceptively similar, to the registered trade/ service marks/art works THE

¶31

VOICE/

¶32

of the plaintiff, in relation to their business,

¶33

products, and services. 10. Further, in terms of the settlement, the defendant has agreed to

CS(COMM) 661/2022

Page 3 of 5

withdraw the Trademark Application filed under No. 4825207 for the mark,

¶38

, in Class 9 dated 17^th January, 2021, with the Trademark

¶39

Registry.

¶40

The suit is accordingly, decreed in terms of the settlement which shall form part of the decree.

¶41

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

¶42

In view of the settlement, the Trademark Registry is directed to process the application of the defendant for withdrawal of their Trademark

¶43

Application No. 4825207 for the mark in Class 9, as and when such application is filed by the defendant.

¶44

As per the terms of the settlement, such application for withdrawal shall be filed by the defendant within thirty days of today’s order.

¶45

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

¶46

At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that the said Court Fees be refunded to the plaintiff through its counsel.

¶47

Accordingly, it is directed that the Court Fees shall be refunded to the plaintiff through its counsel, i.e., REMFRY AND SAGAR.

¶48

Decree sheet be drawn up.

CS(COMM) 661/2022

Page 4 of 5

The present suit, along with the pending applications, stand disposed of.

¶53

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶54

OCTOBER 15, 2024/kr

¶55

CS(COMM) 661/2022

¶56

Page 5 of 5

¶57

Itv Studios Netherlands Content B v. Vs Voice of Mithila

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Itv Studios Netherlands Content B v. Vs Voice of Mithila

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

Ipas & Anr. Vs Parkash Enterprises & Anr.

Zydus Wellness Limited Vs Sungold Foods Industries & Ors.

Diageo Brands B.V. & Anr. Vs Great Galleon Ventures Limited

Family Health Care Hospital Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Shree Nath Drugs & Ors.

Premier Nutritions Private Limited (Formerly Known as Indrajit Solar Power Pvt. Ltd.) Vs Manthan Milk Food Industries & Ors.

Havells India Limited Vs Electromech India Private Limited & Anr.

Tv Today Network Limited & Anr. Vs Backgrid Usa Inc. & Ors.

Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. Vs Lincoln Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Anr.

Ipas & Anr. Vs Parkash Enterprises & Anr.

Music Choice India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Phonographic Performance Ltd.

Diageo Brands B.V. & Anr. Vs Great Galleon Ventures Limited

Rajesh Mehta & Anr. Vs Oakley Inc.

Bentley Systems Inc. & Anr. Vs Pushparaj Kandaswamy & Anr.

Phonographic Performance Limited Vs Parveen Kumar & Anr.