Disposed

Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited v. Symphony Limited

Delhi HC12 Jan 2024CS(COMM)/67/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suit over allegedly identical registered air cooler designs was settled. Joint application under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC recording settlement terms—defendant to discontinue the disputed design and not challenge plaintiff's registrations—was allowed and the suit disposed of with refund of court fees.

What did the court decide?

Settlement recorded; decree drawn per terms; suit disposed of; refund of full court fee granted.

Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited Vs… — Intellectual Property | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~18

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 67/2023

¶4

CROMPTON GREAVES CONSUMER ELECTRICALS LIMITED

¶5

..... Plaintiff Through: Ms. Saumya Bajpai, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

SYMPHONY LIMITED ..... Defendant

¶8

Through: Mr. Sitesh Narayan Singh & Mr. Harshit S. Tolia, Advs. (thru VC)

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 12.01.2024

¶12

I.A. No.879/2024 ( Under Order XXIII Rule 3, CPC )

¶13

This joint application under Order XXIII Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been moved on behalf of the parties for recording the terms of settlement arrived at between them. The plaintiff had initiated the present suit inter alia seeking permanent injunction against the defendant and their affiliates from manufacturing, marketing, and selling air coolers using the design identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's ‘Marvel Neo’ model registered under numbers 326486-001 and 326487-001 as per the Designs Act, 2000 or any other air coolers which were a colourable imitation or substantial reproduction of the plaintiff’s get-up, shape and configuration, surface pattern, design, and packaging. Other attendant reliefs were also sought.

¶14

Pursuant to notice issued by the Court, the parties have attempted to

¶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 13/05/2024 at 12:53:20

¶16

amicably resolve their issues. They have arrived at a settlement, terms of which are captured in para 4 of the said application and are extracted as under:

¶17

“a) The Defendant shall not challenge the validity of the registered designs of the Plaintiff under numbers 326486-001 and 326487001 both dated January 27, 2020, under Section 19 or 22(3) of the Designs Act, 2000, which are for the Air Cooler Model Marvel Neo 40 Litres and Marvel Neo 23, being used by the Plaintiff. b) The Defendant has voluntarily agreed to discontinue the use of design of an air cooler that is alleged in the plaint to be identical/similar to the registered design in the name of the Plaintiff under the Designs Act, 2000, under numbers 326486-001 and 326487-001 both dated January 27, 2020 which are for the Air Cooler Model Marvel Neo 40 Litres and Marvel Neo 23.

¶18

c) Defendant agrees that at present there is existing stock of 68 air coolers containing the design of an air cooler that is alleged to be identical/similar design as that of the registered design in the name of the Plaintiff under the Designs Act, 2000, under numbers 326486-00 1 and 326487-00 1 both dated January 27, 2020. After the clearance of these 68 air coolers, the Defendant shall not sell any such air cooler. The Defendant has already stopped purchasing the disputed air cooler from its manufacturer, Canberra Industries Pvt. Ltd., even prior to filing of the suit by the Plaintiff.

¶19

d) The Plaintiff also agrees not to press for any relief against the Defendant including for the damages, rendition of account, cost or such other reliefs except as agreed upon by the parties in these

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

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 13/05/2024 at 12:53:20

¶22

terms of the settlement.

¶23

e) The Defendant has no objection in case the Plaintiff is allowed for refund of full court fees from the Hon'ble Court.”

¶24

The Court has perused the aforesaid terms of settlement and finds the same lawful. Needless to state that the parties shall be bound by these terms of settlement.

¶25

In view of the foregoing, the present application is allowed.

¶26

5. Decree sheet be drawn in terms of settlement as noted above.

¶27

Accordingly, the suit stands disposed of.

¶28

Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.

¶29

The petitioner is entitled to refund of Court fee in terms of applicable provisions of the Court Fees Act, 1870 in view of the settlement.

¶30

Date of 13^th February, 2024 fixed earlier stands cancelled.

¶31

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

¶32

ANISH DAYAL, J

¶33

JANUARY 12, 2024/sm/sc

¶34

This is a digitally signed order.

¶35

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 13/05/2024 at 12:53:20

Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited v. Symphony Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited v. Symphony Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kei Industries Limited Vs Koyo Lubricants Ltd. & Ors.

Tata Sons Private Limited & Ors. Vs Tushar Fulare

Alkem Laboratories Ltd. Vs Eris Lifesciences Ltd.

Enagic Hk Co. Ltd. Vs Alpinestar Water Innovation Pvt. Ltd.

Sugen,Inc.and Ors. Vs Mr. K Vijaya Prakash and Ors.

Volans Uptown Llc Vs Mahendra Jeshabhai Bambhaniya

Rci Industries & Technologies Ltd. Vs M/S Indus Overseas & Ors.

Sh Sanjay Bansal Vs M/S Gangotri Enterprises Ltd.

Kei Industries Limited Vs Koyo Lubricants Ltd. & Ors.

Alkem Laboratories Ltd. Vs Eris Lifesciences Ltd.

Jack in the Box Inv. 9330 Balboa Ave. San Diego, Ca 92123-1516 Vs Marching Ants Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Found Floor, Shop No. 2, Food Courts, Knowledge Boulevard, A-8A

The Indian Express P Ltd. Vs the Indian Express Newspapers Workers Union Regd and Anr.

Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. Vs Twinkle Luminaires Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Mexswitchgears Pvt. Ltd. 9TH Kilometer Mex Estate, Pathankot Road, Jalandhar Vs Som Datt M/S Niraj Sales Csorporation, 10762 Mananpura, Karol Bagh, New Dselhi