Disposed

Pstgems Private Limited v. Mr Anurag Saxena & Ors.

Delhi HC21 Jan 2025CS(COMM)/1214/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Trade mark suit concerning use of the mark BRAMPIUM. Defendants stated they discontinued the mark, sought withdrawal of their trade mark application, and requested Flipkart take down listings. The Court passed a permanent injunction in terms of specified prayer clauses and directed Flipkart to remove listings. Damages and costs were not pressed; full court fee refund was granted.

What the court decided

AI extract

Pstgems Private Limited Vs Mr Anurag Saxena & Ors. — Intellectual Property | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~39

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CS(COMM) 1214/2024 with I.A. 49963/2024

¶4

.....Plaintiff

¶5

PSTGEMS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Senior Advocate with Ms. Rima Majumdar, Mr. Aditya Bats Sharma, Ms. Aashi Nema, Mrs. Bindra Rana, Mr. Luv Virmani, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

MR ANURAG SAXENA & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Ms. Kangan Roda, Mr. Nitesh Jain, Mr. Chirantan Priyadarshan, Advocates for D-1 & D-2.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

¶9

O R D E R % 21.01.2025

¶10

At the hearing of the present suit on 20^th January, 2025, it was recorded as under:

¶11

“1. A list of additional documents has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has placed on record a communication dated 14th January, 2025, filed on behalf of the defendant no.1 in the Trade Mark Registry seeking to withdraw the Trade Mark application No.6703365 in

¶12

class 5 in respect of the mark BRAMPIUM/

¶13

2. Plaintiff has also placed on record a reply dated 18th December, 2024 sent on behalf of the defendant no.1 in response to the plaintiff’s legal notice dated 7th December, 2024, wherein the defendants have communicated their decision of discontinuing the use of the mark ‘BRAMPIUM’.

¶14

3. Ms. Kangan Roda appearing on behalf of the defendants submits

¶15

Page 1 of 2

¶16

CS(COMM) 1214/2024

¶17

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 24/01/2025 at 16:42:20

¶18

that the aforesaid communications may be taken in respect of both defendants no.1 and 2.

¶19

3.1. She further submits that the defendants have also written to ‘Flipkart’, the only e-commerce platform on which defendant no.1’s products are being sold, to take down the listing.”

¶20

In view of the aforesaid statements made on behalf of the defendants no.1 and 2, a decree of permanent injunction is passed in terms of the prayer clause contained in paragraph no.43(i), (ii), (v) and (vi) of the plaint.

¶21

The plaintiff does not press for relief of damages and costs.

¶22

It is stated on behalf of counsel for the parties that listings of the impugned products have not been removed from the platform of Flipkart Internet Private Limited but have only been archived and the same still shows in Google search results.

¶23

In view of above, direction is issued to Flipkart Internet Private Limited to remove the listings of the impugned products from its platform.

¶24

Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.

¶25

All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶26

In view of the fact that the matter has been settled on the second date of hearing, the Registry is directed to issue a certificate of refund of 100% of the Court Fees in favour of the plaintiff, in terms of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, as applicable to Delhi.

¶27

AMIT BANSAL, J

¶28

JANUARY 21, 2025 vld

¶29

Page 2 of 2

¶30

CS(COMM) 1214/2024

¶31

Pstgems Private Limited v. Mr Anurag Saxena & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Pstgems Private Limited v. Mr Anurag Saxena & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. Vs R. Venkatachalam and Anr.

Ims Learning Resources Priavate Limited Vs Young Achievers

Fdc Limited Vs Biotic Healthcare Private Limited

Jaipuria Edutech Foundation & Anr. Vs Shyamlalbabu Educational Trust

M/S Movie Time Cinemas Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Sip Footwear Private Limited & Ors.

Glaxo Group Limited and Anr. Vs Elder Laboratories Limited

The Scotch Whisky Association Vs Neuworld Spirits Private Limited

Neeraj Kumar Trading as M/S Ganga Traders Vs M/S Chacha Food Company & Anr.

M/S Baba Vishwakarma Engineering Company (P) Ltd. Vs Shri Bhausaheb Bapurai Nikam C/O Ulka Industries Ltd.

Sandisk Llc Vs Jpy Mobile Phone Accessories & Anr.

Anil Mohan Bhardwaj Vs Ravi Pocket Books & Ors.

Immunolight Llc Vs Controller of Patents

Cipla Health Limited Vs Glister Pharmaceuticals & Anr.

M/S. Pharma Synth Formulations Ltd. Vs Registrar of Trademarks