Allowed

Puma Se v. MD Faizan Rashid Owner/ Proprietor of Shoe Lounge and Anr.

Delhi HC2 Dec 2024CS(COMM)/675/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court decreed a trademark infringement suit following a settlement agreement where the defendant acknowledged the plaintiff's exclusive rights and agreed not to challenge them. The court directed a certificate of refund for court fees to the plaintiff.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed in favour of the plaintiff in terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 22nd November, 2024; refund of court fees granted to the plaintiff.

Puma Se Vs MD Faizan Rashid Owner/ Proprietor… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~19

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 675/2022, I.A. 3191/2023, I.A. 16202/2023, I.A.

¶4

2173/2024 & I.A. 2427/2024

¶5

PUMA SE .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Shakti Priyan Nair and Mr. Parth Bajaj, Advs. (Through VC)

¶6

versus

¶7

MD FAIZAN RASHID OWNER/ PROPRIETOR OF SHOE LOUNGE AND ANR. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Arjun Harkauli, Mr. Abeer Shandilya and Ms. Sarakshi Asarsa, Advs.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶9

O R D E R % 02.12.2024

¶10

Settlement Agreement dated 22^nd November, 2024, has been received from Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.

¶11

The present suit was filed seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, passing off, unfair trade competition, rendition of account, damages, delivery up, etc., on the ground that the defendant was stocking, supplying and selling footwear including shoes using the plaintiff’s well known mark PUMA and

¶12

logo and form strip logo .

¶13

Vide order dated 27^th September, 2022, an ad-interim injunction was

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 06/12/2024 at 12:44:53

¶16

passed, whereby, the defendant was restrained from using the mark PUMA

¶17

and logo and form strip logo .

¶18

Parties were referred to mediation vide order dated 30^th January, 2024, wehrein, the parties have successfully negotiated the Settlement Agreement dated 22^nd November, 2024.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

The parties are held bound by the terms of the settlement.

¶22

As per the settlement, the defenant has recognized and acknowledged the plaintiff’s exlusive proprietory rights in the trademark PUMA and

¶23

logo and form strip logo and all

¶24

of its formative trademarks and has agreed not to challenge the plaintiff’s statutory and proprietory rights directly or indirectly, at any time in future in India and globally.

¶25

Accordinlgy, considering the submissions made before this Court, and in view of the settlement between the parties, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant in terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 22^nd November, 2024, which shall form part of the decree.

¶26

Considering 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 to the plaintiff through its counsel, i.e., Mr. Ranjan Narula, Advocate,

¶27

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 06/12/2024 at 12:44:53

¶28

(M: 9891584230).

¶29

Decree sheet be drawn up.

¶30

The present suit, along with the pending applications, stands disposed

¶31

¶32

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶33

DECEMBER 2, 2024/kr

¶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 06/12/2024 at 12:44:53

Puma Se v. MD Faizan Rashid Owner/ Proprietor of Shoe Lounge and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puma Se v. MD Faizan Rashid Owner/ Proprietor of Shoe Lounge and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Unimrkt Research Pvt. Ltd. Vs Empirico Research Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

M/S Parshant Zippers Vs M/S Omega Zippers

Countrywide Promoters Private Limited Vs Navraj Infratech Private Limited

M/S Allied Blenders & Distilers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Venkateshwara Distilleries & Anr.

Sh Puneet Kumar Vs Ms Bansal Credits Limited

Cipla Health Limited Vs Syndicate Pharma & Anr.

Aura Synergy India Ltd. & Anr. Vs M/S New Age False Ceiling Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anrs

M/S Laboratoire Garnier & Cie Vs Pradeep Bhatia & Ors.

Raja Bhandari Vs Naman Arora and Sandeep Garg and Anr.

Countrywide Promoters Private Limited Vs Navraj Infratech Private Limited

M/S Allied Blenders & Distilers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Venkateshwara Distilleries & Anr.

D T Media and Entertainment Private Limited Vs Premchand Palety

Shilpi Rajbhar Vs Patel Music and Films Propertior & Ors.

Mankind Pharma Limited Vs Humankind Health and Hygiene Private Limited & Ors.