J.C. Bamford Excavators Limited v. Master Alloys Limited & Ors.

Delhi HC16 May 2025CS(COMM)/78/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CS(COMM) 78/2020; Delhi High Court; Amit Bansal, J.; order dated 16.05.2025; J.C. Bamford Excavators Ltd. v. Master Alloys Ltd.; trademark infringement suit disposed of on statements; defendant no.1 bound by undertaking not to use marks 'JCB'/'JOB' or tread design after termination of License Agreement; no objection to defendant no.1 using mark 'MAL'; I.A. 2605/2022, I.A. 3692/2024, I.A. 12365/2025 disposed; refund of 100% court fees; Section 16, Court Fees Act, 1870; Shardul Amarchand Magaldas & Co.; settlement at early stage.

What did the court decide?

Suit and all pending applications disposed of on the basis of recorded statements of both sides; Registry directed to issue a certificate of refund of 100% of the Court Fees in favour of the plaintiff under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870. ¶¶20

J.C. Bamford Excavators Limited Vs Master Alloys Limited & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether defendant no.1 used the plaintiff's marks 'JCB'/'JOB' or its tread design after termination of the License Agreement between them - resolved by defendant no.1's statement on instructions that it has neither used the marks nor intends to do so in the future.

¶¶8

Court's answer

The statement of counsel for defendant no.1 that it has neither used nor intends to use the plaintiff's marks or tread design is taken on record, and defendant no.1 shall be bound by the same.

¶¶18

Ratio / Principle

The plaintiff's counsel submitted, and it was taken on record as part of the settlement, that the plaintiff has no objection to defendant no.1 using the mark 'MAL'.

¶¶19

Key takeaways

Taking the aforesaid statements on record, the present suit stands disposed of.ratio¶¶20
All pending applications in the suit stand disposed of.ratio¶¶21
Since the matter was settled at an early stage, the Registry is directed to issue a certificate of refund of 100% of the Court Fees in favour of the plaintiff, through its counsel, in terms of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (CS(COMM) 78/2020, Amit Bansal, J., 16.05.2025): Trademark suit between J.C. Bamford Excavators Ltd. and Master Alloys Ltd. disposed of on consent-style statements. Counsel for defendant no.1 stated on instructions that, after termination of the License Agreement with the plaintiff, it has neither used the marks 'JCB', 'JOB' or the plaintiff's tread design nor intends to do so; this statement was taken on record and defendant no.1 declared bound by it. Plaintiff raised no objection to defendant no.1 using the mark 'MAL'. All pending I.As. (2605/2022, 3692/2024, 12365/2025) were disposed of, and the Registry was directed to issue a certificate of refund of 100% court fees in favour of the plaintiff in terms of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, the matter having been settled at an early stage.

¶1

$~26

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 78/2020 with I.A. 2605/2022 and I.A. 3692/2024 and I.A. 12365/2025

¶4

J.C. BAMFORD EXCAVATORS LIMITED .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Ankit Jain, Senior Advocate with Ms. Ila Kapoor, Ms. Maidini Phool and Ms Prakrati Sharma, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

MASTER ALLOYS LIMITED & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Mandeep Kalra, Ms. Anushka Satapathy, Ms. Radhika Jalan, Ms. Widaphi Lymgdoh, Mr. Yashas J. Ms. Shweta Singh, Mr. Vaibhav Yadav, Mr. Paras Mohan Sharma and Ms. Shefali Tripathi, Advocates for D-1.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL O R D E R % 16.05.2025

¶8

Mr. Mandeep Kalra, counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant no.1, submits, on instructions, that the defendant no.1 has neither used the

¶9

impugned marks ‘JCB’, ‘JOB’/ ‘ ’ or the tread design

¶10

‘ ’/ ‘ ’ of the plaintiff after termination of the License

¶11

Agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1, nor has any

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

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 17/05/2025 at 13:11:04

¶14

Page 1 of 2

¶15

CS(COMM) 78/2020

¶16

intention to do so in the future.

¶17

The aforesaid statement of counsel for the defendant no.1 is taken on record.

¶18

The defendant no.1 shall be bound by the same.

¶19

Mr. Ankit Jain, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, submits that the plaintiff has no objection with the defendant no.1 using the mark ‘MAL’.

¶20

Taking the aforesaid statements on record, the present suit stands disposed of.

¶21

All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶22

Since the matter has been settled at an early stage, Registry is directed to issue a certificate of refund of 100% of the Court Fees in favour of the plaintiff, through its counsel – Shardul Amarchand Magaldas & Co., in terms of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870.

AMIT BANSAL, J

MAY 16, 2025

Vivek/-

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

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 17/05/2025 at 13:11:04

¶28

Page 2 of 2

¶29

CS(COMM) 78/2020

J.C. Bamford Excavators Limited v. Master Alloys Limited & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.C. Bamford Excavators Limited v. Master Alloys Limited & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited & Ors. Vs Natco Pharma Limited

Louis Vuitton Malletier Vs Abdulkhaliq Abdulkader Chamadia, & Ors.

M/S Global Broadcasting Solutions Opc Private Ltd. Vs M/S Offbeat Media and Communications Pvt. Ltd.

Adidas Ag & Anr. Vs Aman Kumar Prajapati Trading as Aman Footwear

Shri Virender Mohan Sahni Vs Chetanya Buildcon Private Limited & Ors.

Vikas Gupta and Anr. Vs M/S Sahni Cosmetics

Dura-Line India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd.

Hk Permanent Makeup Clinic Vs Gana Arun Alias Zombie Revolt & Ors.

Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited & Ors. Vs Natco Pharma Limited

Louis Vuitton Malletier Vs Abdulkhaliq Abdulkader Chamadia, & Ors.

Adidas Ag & Anr. Vs Aman Kumar Prajapati Trading as Aman Footwear

Dassault Systemes S.E & Ors. Vs Heidelberg Cement India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. Vs Abony Healthcare Ltd.

Shri Prem Prakash Dhawan Vs Mr. Aman Dhattarwal & Ors.