Bulgari S.P.A Vs Aanchal Jain Trading as Izzari Jewels

$~30

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- CS(COMM) 814/2024 & I.A. 39916/2024

BULGARI S.P.A .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Rishi Bansal, Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Ms. Suruti Manchanda and Ms. Deasha Mehta, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

AANCHAL JAIN TRADING AS IZZARI JEWELS .....Defendant Through: Mr. Ark Khanna, Advocate (Through VC)

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA O R D E R

¶9

% 14.08.2025

¶10

The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff under Section 134 and 135 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 and Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957 for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademarks and copyright, passing off etc.

¶11

This Court on request of the parties referred the parties to mediation vide order dated 26.11.2024.

¶12

The Settlement Agreement dated 25.07.2025 executed between the parties before Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre [‘Mediation Centre’] has been received from the registry.

¶13

Learned counsels for the parties jointly state that executory obligations undertaken under the Settlement Agreement dated 25.07.2025 have already been performed by the Defendant.

¶14

CS(COMM) 814/2024

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

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 18/08/2025 at 14:00:17

¶17

Learned counsel for the Defendant states that Defendant undertakes to remain bound by the undertakings recorded in the Settlement Agreement dated 25.07.2025.

¶18

The parties jointly state that the suit be disposed of in terms of Settlement Agreement dated 25.07.2025. 7. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Settlement Agreement dated 25.07.2025. 8. The Supreme Court in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd.¹ , while dealing with the Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) has observed that a settlement agreement executed between the parties should be placed before the Court for recording it and disposing of the suit in its terms. And, while dealing with the settlement, the Court should apply the Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC and make a decree in terms of the settlement in regard to the subject matter of the suit, to make such settlement effective.

¶19

This Court is satisfied that the compromise between the parties as contained in the aforesaid Settlement Agreement dated 25.07.2025 satisfies the requirements of Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC. 10. The compromise contained in the aforesaid Settlement Agreement dated 25.07.2025 is lawful and therefore, this Court does not find any impediment in decreeing the captioned suit in terms of the aforesaid Settlement Agreement dated 25.07.2025.

¶20

The statements and undertaking given by the parties are accepted by this Court and the parties are held bound by the same.

¶21

Consequently, the captioned suit is disposed of in terms of the

¶22

CS(COMM) 814/2024

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

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 18/08/2025 at 14:00:17

¶25

Settlement Agreement dated 25.07.2025 executed between the parties. Interim order shall stand merged in the final decree. Registry is directed to draw up the decree.

¶26

Learned counsel for the Plaintiff requests for refund of the court fee.

¶27

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the registry is directed to refund 100% Court Fee in favour of Plaintiff within six (6) weeks, in accordance with law. The said direction has been passed having regard to Section 16 and 16A of the Court Fees Act, 1870, and the judgment of the Supreme Court in High Court of Judicature at Madras v. M.C. Subramaniam & Ors² .

¶28

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶29

Future dates, if any, stand cancelled.

¶30

The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, shall be treated as a certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No physical copy of order shall be insisted by any authority/entity or litigant.

¶31

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

¶32

AUGUST 14, 2025/ rhc/sk

¶33

1 (2010) 8 SCC 24.

¶34

2 (2021) 3 SCC 560.

¶35

CS(COMM) 814/2024

¶36

Page 3 of 3

¶37

This is a digitally signed order.

¶38

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 18/08/2025 at 14:00:17

Bulgari S.P.A v. Aanchal Jain Trading as Izzari Jewels

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bulgari S.P.A v. Aanchal Jain Trading as Izzari Jewels

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

New Balance Athletics Inc. Vs Laxman Rai

M/S. Index Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Icon Express & Ors.

Neetu Singh Vs Telegram Fz Llc

M/S Dhanuka Agritech Ltd. Vs M/S Super Ford Insecticides Limited

Stryker Corporation Vs Strykar Healthercare LLP and Anr.

Hero Investcorp Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Ashok Kumar (John Doe)

M/S Ans Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Er Surinder Sharma (Govt. Contractor) Unique Engineers and Builders

Dabur India Limited Vs Real Hindustan Beverages

Keva Flavours Private Limited Vs Asian Chem Works Privated Limited and Anr.

Neetu Singh Vs Telegram Fz Llc

Joy Creators LLP Vs Best Medicals & Ors.

University of Guelph Vs Controller of Patents and Designs

Dabur India Limited Vs Real Hindustan Beverages

Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices Bureau of India (Pmbi) Erstwhile - Bureau of Pharma Public Vs Laurel Life Science Pvt. Ltd.