Disposed

Prakash Industries Limited v. Manmohan Bansal & Ors.

Delhi HC12 Aug 2026CONT.CAS(C)/16/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition alleging violation of an IPAB cancellation order and settlement terms via unlawful creation of third-party rights in a trademark. The court accepted the respondents' unconditional apology and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Unconditional apology accepted; petition disposed of.

What the court decided

Prakash Industries Limited Vs Manmohan Bansal & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~21 & 22

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 12^th August, 2026

¶4

CNR No. DLHC010489142022

¶5

- CONT.CAS(C) 1437/2022

¶6

M/S PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Yasheswini Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Rishabh Srivastava, Mr. Sanjay Aggarwal and Mr. Sahil Gupta, Advocates Mob: 9958349040

¶7

versus

¶8

THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARK & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr. Akash Mishra, Advocates for R-1 Mob: 9910113783 Email: [email protected] Mr. Amique Khalid, Advocate for R- 2 and 3. Mob: 9540753908 Email: [email protected]

¶9

¶10

CNR No. DLHC010004502022

¶11

- CONT.CAS(C) 16/2023

¶12

PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Yasheswini Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Rishabh Srivastava, Mr. Sanjay Aggarwal and Mr. Sahil Gupta, Advocates Mob: 9958349040

¶13

versus

¶14

MANMOHAN BANSAL & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anubhav Gupta, Panel Counsel,

¶15

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 9.08.2026 10:15:52

¶16

Page 1 of 7

¶17

GNCTD (Civil) with Ms. Rashi Aggarwal, Advocates for GNCTD Mob: 9910623535 Mr. Amique Khalid, Advocate for R- 1 and 2. Mob: 9540753908 Email: [email protected]

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶19

MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (ORAL):

¶20

The present petitions have been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 30^th November, 2018, passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (“IPAB”) and the consent order dated 27^th February, 2017, passed by this Court in CS(OS) 1562/2015 .

¶21

This Court notes that vide order dated 30^th November, 2018, passed by the IPAB, the trademark bearing no. 1800087 of respondent no.1 in CONT. CAS (C) 16/2023 in Class 35, for the mark, i.e., ‘PRAKASHDEEP’, was cancelled.

¶22

The said order reads as under:

¶23

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 9.08.2026 10:15:52

¶24

Page 2 of 7

¶25

The aforesaid order was passed on the basis of settlement between the parties, terms of which are reproduced in application being I.A. 2537/2016, in CS(OS) 1562/2015, filed before this Court.

¶26

The terms of the said settlement as contained in the application, read as under:

¶27

“xxx xxx xxx

¶28

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 9.08.2026 10:15:52

¶29

Page 3 of 7

¶30

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 9.08.2026 10:15:52

¶31

Page 4 of 7

¶32

xxx xxx xxx”

¶33

Perusal of the aforesaid clearly shows that in terms of the Settlement,

¶34

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 9.08.2026 10:15:52

¶35

Page 5 of 7

¶36

the respondent herein undertook not to use the trademark ‘PRAKASHDEEP’ or ‘PRAKASH’ or file any application for its registration.

¶37

The said settlement pertains to use of the trademark in Classes 6, 9 and 17.

¶38

It is to be noted that on the basis of the aforesaid settlement, the rectification petition filed on behalf of the petitioner herein with regard to use of the said mark by the respondents under Class 35 was also allowed, and the trademark under Class 35 as registered by the respondent no.1 in CONT. CAS (C) 16/2023 under the name ‘PRAKASHDEEP’ was removed vide order dated 30^th November, 2018, passed by the IPAB.

¶39

Subsequently, after the passing of the aforesaid order, the respondents herein renewed the registration under Class 35. Further, respondent nos. 1 and 2 in CONT. CAS (C) 16/2023 are also stated to have created third party right in the said registration under Class 35 for the mark ‘PRAKASHDEEP’. 10. Thus, the present contempt petition has been filed.

¶40

Clearly, after the settlement between parties, and passing of the order dated 30^th November, 2018, there was no occasion for the Registrar of Trade Marks to renew the trademark of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 in CONT. CAS (C) 16/2023 for the mark, ‘PRAKASHDEEP’, under Class 35. 12. In response, learned counsel appearing for respondent - Registrar of Trade Marks submits that the mark of respondent nos. 1 and 2, under Class 35 was removed on 19^th December, 2022.

¶41

He draws the attention of this Court to the order dated 18^th April, 2023, passed in the present proceedings, where the said fact has been recorded.

¶42

Signature Not Verified

¶43

Page 6 of 7

¶44

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 9.08.2026 10:15:52

¶45

Paragraph 1 of the order dated 18^th April, 2023, reads as under: “1. Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, learned counsel for Respondent no. 1 has entered appearances and he states that trademark bearing registration No. 1800087 has been removed by the registry.

¶46

xxx xxx xxx”

¶47

At this stage, this Court records the statement of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that despite the aforesaid order of the IPAB and the settlement between the parties, respondent nos. 1 and 2 in CONT. CAS (C) 16/2023 created third party right in the mark ‘PRAKASHDEEP’ under Class 35.

¶48

This Court also records the statement made by learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2 that the said transfer in favour of a third party was made in the year 2020.

¶49

Clearly, the said transfer by the said respondents in favour of the third party was contemptuous in nature, as no third party right could have been created by the respondents in view of the settlement, and the order as aforesaid.

¶50

Evidently, any transfer made by respondent nos. 1 and 2 in CONT. CAS (C) 16/2023 for the mark ‘PRAKASHDEEP’ under Class 35, was void. 19. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2 extends unconditional apology before this Court.

¶51

The aforesaid apology is accepted.

¶52

Noting the aforesaid, the present petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶53

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶54

AUGUST 12, 2026/ ak

¶55

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 9.08.2026 10:15:52

¶56

Page 7 of 7

Prakash Industries Limited v. Manmohan Bansal & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Prakash Industries Limited v. Manmohan Bansal & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamaluddin Alias Kamal Uddin and Ors. Vs Sanjay Arora and Ors.

Rss Degree College Vs Ms. Sukhgeet Kaur, Iofs, Member Secretary, Ncte and Anr.

State President, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Casual and Contract Workers Union, Uttarakhand Vs Mr. Parmod Kumar Jain, Chief General Manager, Telecom, West, BSNL & Anr.

State President, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Casual and Contract Workers Union, Uttarakhand Vs Mr. Pramod Kumar Jain, Chief General Manager, Telecom, West, BSNL & Anr.

Court on Its Own Motion Vs Ravi Babu , Assistant Commissioner, Cgst , Division Daryaganj

Sh Veer Sain Vs Sh. Surender Singh and Others

Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs M a Zahid Proprietor Smsk Mineral Trading Company

Shish Ram & Ors. Vs Ajay Kumar Bhalla Secretary Mha & Anr.