Disposed¶25

Monster Energy Company v. Rajat Prajapati

Delhi HC23 Apr 2026CS(COMM)/176/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Monster Energy Company v Rajat Prajapati; CS(COMM) 176/2026; Delhi High Court; Jyoti Singh, J; trademark suit MONSTER SPORTS/MONSTER/MONSTER BATS; amicable settlement; Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC; Section 151 CPC; compromise decreed; settlement forms part of decree binds parties; I.A. 11159/2026; pending I.As. 4994/2026 4995/2026 disposed; refund of entire court fees; Court Fees Act, 1870; decree sheet.

What did the court decide?

Settlement recorded; suit decreed with the terms of settlement forming part of the decree and binding the parties; suit disposed of along with pending applications (including I.As. 4994/2026 and 4995/2026); Plaintiff granted refund of entire court fees per the Court Fees Act, 1870. ¶25

Monster Energy Company Vs Rajat Prajapati — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the parties' settlement of the disputes is lawful and should be recorded by the Court, warranting decreal of the suit in terms of the settlement.

¶21

Court's answer

The Court perused the terms of settlement, found them lawful, and accordingly allowed and disposed of the joint application, recording the settlement between the parties.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

In light of the settlement, the suit is decreed, and the terms of settlement form a part of the decree and bind the parties thereto.

¶23

Key takeaways

Registry directed to draw up the decree sheet.ratio¶24
Suit stands disposed of along with pending applications.ratio¶25
Plaintiff held entitled to refund of the entire court fees in accordance with the Court Fees Act, 1870.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Jyoti Singh, J.; decision dated 23.04.2026) disposed of CS(COMM) 176/2026, a suit by Monster Energy Company against Rajat Prajapati seeking permanent injunction restraining dealing in products under the impugned marks/labels/trade name MONSTER SPORTS/MONSTER with variants and formatives (text further shows MONSTER BATS). During the pendency of the suit the parties settled amicably; on their joint application I.A. 11159/2026 under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC, the Court perused and found the settlement terms lawful, allowed the application, recorded the settlement, decreed the suit with the settlement terms forming part of the decree and binding the parties, directed the Registry to draw up the decree sheet, and disposed of the suit with pending applications (I.As. 4994/2026, 4995/2026). Plaintiff held entitled to refund of entire court fees in accordance with the Court Fees Act, 1870.

¶1

$~107

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 176/2026

¶4

MONSTER ENERGY COMPANY .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Sharavan Kumar Bansal, Mr. Rishi Bansal, Mr. Saransh Saini and Ms. Shruti Manchanda, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

RAJAT PRAJAPATI .....Defendant Through: Mr. Varnik Kundaliya, Advocate.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

O R D E R

% 23.04.2026

I.A. 11159/2026

This application is jointly filed on behalf of the Plaintiff and the Defendant under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC for recording of settlement between parties.

¶13

This suit was instituted on behalf of the Plaintiff inter alia seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the Defendant restraining the Defendant and all others acting on his behalf from using, selling, soliciting, manufacturing, marketing, importing, exporting, displaying, advertising and/or dealing in the course of trade in offline or online form including by way of export and import and/or refilling, packaging and distributing the products under the impugned marks/labels/trade name MONSTER SPORTS/

¶14

MONSTER/ along with their variants and formatives such as MONSTER

¶15

CS(COMM) 176/2026

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶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 24/04/2026 at 12:32:39

¶18

SPORTS/ , MONSTER/ and MONSTER

¶19

BATS.

¶20

During the pendency of the suit, parties have settled the disputes amicably and the terms of settlement are incorporated in paragraph 2 of the application.

¶21

Court has perused the terms of settlement and finds the same to be lawful. Accordingly, this application is allowed and disposed of, recording the settlement between the parties.

¶22

CS(COMM) 176/2026 & I.As. 4994/2026, 4995/2026

¶23

In light of settlement between the parties, the suit is decreed. Terms of settlement shall form a part of the decree and needless to state bind the parties thereto.

¶24

Registry is directed to draw up the decree sheet.

¶25

Suit stands disposed of along with pending applications.

¶26

Plaintiff is held entitled to refund of entire court fees in accordance

¶27

with the Court Fees Act, 1870.

¶28

JYOTI SINGH, J

¶29

APRIL 23, 2026/ RW

¶30

CS(COMM) 176/2026

¶31

Page 2 of 2

¶32

This is a digitally signed order.

¶33

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 24/04/2026 at 12:32:39

Monster Energy Company v. Rajat Prajapati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monster Energy Company v. Rajat Prajapati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. Vs Nahta Salt and Chemical Private Limited & Anr.

M/S Siddhi Engineers & Anr. Vs Ishrat Akil Shaik

Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs Turio Pharmaceuticals Private Limited

Pushpa Gupta Vs S.R. Foils Hygiene (P) Ltd. & Ors.

Dabur India Limited Vs Mohammed Ali Akber & Ors.

Natco Pharma Limited Vs Fmc Agro Singapore Pte. Ltd. & Ors.

Seven Eleven Leasing and Finance Ltd. Vs Precision Tech Enterprises and Ors. & Ors.

Van Tibolli & Anr. Vs K. Srinivas Rao & Anr.

Natalja Eikje Vs Joint Controller of Patents and Designs

Shruti Sharma Vs the Registrar of Trade Marks

Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. Vs Nahta Salt and Chemical Private Limited & Anr.

Summercool Home Appliances Limited Vs Summerlife Home Appliances & Ors.

M/S Shiv Nadar (Institution of Eminence Deemed to Be University) Vs M/S the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs

Kei Industries Limited Vs Mr. Abhaysingh Javansingh Parmar & Anr.