Disposed¶23

Abbott Gmbh & Ors. v. Tcsol Biopharma & Ors.

Delhi HC19 Jan 2026CS(COMM)/573/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Abbott GmbH v. TCSOL Biopharma, CS(COMM) 573/2024, Delhi High Court, Jyoti Singh J., 19.01.2026: settlement decree under Order XXIII Rule 3 r/w Section 151 CPC; trademark/design infringement and passing off suit decreed in terms of settlement; Rs. 2.5 lakhs paid; impugned goods to be destroyed within one week; decree qua D-5 earlier on 12.09.2025 on undertaking; refund of entire court fees under Court Fees Act 1870; suit and pending applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed in terms of the settlement recorded in paragraph 3 of the joint application; Plaintiffs entitled to refund of entire Court fees; Registry to draw up the decree sheet. ¶23

Abbott Gmbh & Ors. Vs Tcsol Biopharma & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Suit decreed in terms of the settlement recorded in paragraph 3 of the joint application; Plaintiffs entitled to refund of entire Court fees; Registry to draw up the decree sheet.

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the joint application under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC, recording the settlement between the Plaintiffs and Defendants No. 1 to 4, should be accepted and a decree passed in terms of the settlement. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

The Court perused the terms of settlement incorporated in paragraph 3 of the application, found the settlement lawful, and held that the ingredients of Order XXIII Rule 3 stand satisfied.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Application I.A. 1272/2026 stands disposed of, recording the settlement between the parties.

¶20

Key takeaways

The suit is decreed in terms of the settlement between the parties incorporated in paragraph 3 of the application.ratio¶23
The suit stands disposed of along with all pending applications.ratio¶25
Plaintiffs are held entitled to refund of the entire Court fees in accordance with the Court Fees Act, 1870.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Jyoti Singh, J.), by order dated 19.01.2026 in CS(COMM) 573/2024 (Abbott GmbH & Ors. v. TCSOL Biopharma & Ors.), accepted joint application I.A. 1272/2026 under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC moved by the Plaintiffs and Defendants No. 1 to 4, finding the settlement lawful and its ingredients satisfied, and decreed the suit in terms of the settlement incorporated in paragraph 3 of the application. Earlier, a decree had been passed qua Defendant No. 5 on 12.09.2025 on that Defendant's undertaking. Counsel for Defendants No. 1 to 4 recorded that Rs. 2.5 lakhs had been paid to the Plaintiffs and that the sole remaining obligation was destruction of the impugned goods within one week, with a video recording to be shared with the Plaintiffs' counsel. The suit, filed for declaration, permanent injunction (trademark infringement and passing off), design infringement, dilution, tarnishment, unfair competition, delivery up, damages and rendition of account, stands disposed of with all pending applications, and the Plaintiffs were held entitled to refund of the entire Court fees under the Court Fees Act, 1870.

¶1

$~27

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 573/2024

¶4

ABBOTT GMBH & ORS. .....Plaintiffs

¶5

Through: Mr. Naqeeb Nawab, Mr. Prakhar Singh and Ms. Nippun Vibhav Singh, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

TCSOL BIOPHARMA & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Santanam Swaminadhan and Mr. Kartik Malhotra, Advocates for D-1 to D-4.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

O R D E R

% 19.01.2026

I.A. 1272/2026

This is a joint application under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC between the Plaintiffs and Defendants No. 1 to 4 bringing on record the settlement between the parties and for passing a decree in terms of the settlement.

¶13

Learned counsel for the Plaintiffs points out that a decree has already been passed qua Defendant No. 5 by order dated 12.09.2025 based on an undertaking given by said Defendant, as recorded in the said order.

¶14

Court has perused the terms of settlement which are incorporated and extracted in paragraph 3 of the application and finds the settlement to be lawful. Ingredients of Order XXIII Rule 3 stand satisfied.

¶15

CS(COMM) 573/2024

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 21/01/2026 at 13:26:54

¶19

Learned counsel for Defendants No. 1 to 4 also states that as agreed, payment of Rs.2.5 lakhs has been paid to the Plaintiffs and the only other obligation that remains to be fulfilled is the destruction of impugned goods, which will be done within a period of one week from today and a video recording shall be shared with the counsel for the Plaintiffs.

¶20

Accordingly, the application stands disposed of, recording the settlement.

¶21

CS(COMM) 573/2024 & I.A. 33354/2024

¶22

This suit is filed by the Plaintiffs for declaration, permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademarks and passing off, infringement of design, dilution, tarnishment, unfair competition, delivery up, damages and rendition of account.

¶23

The suit is decreed in terms of the settlement between the parties incorporated in paragraph 3 of the application.

¶24

Registry shall draw up the decree sheet.

¶25

Suit stands disposed of along with all pending applications.

¶26

Plaintiffs are held entitled to refund of entire Court fees in accordance with Court Fees Act, 1870.

¶27

JYOTI SINGH, J

¶28

JANUARY 19, 2026/ RW

¶29

CS(COMM) 573/2024

¶30

Page 2 of 2

¶31

This is a digitally signed order.

¶32

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 21/01/2026 at 13:26:54

Abbott Gmbh & Ors. v. Tcsol Biopharma & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abbott Gmbh & Ors. v. Tcsol Biopharma & 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laticrete International Inc. & Anr. Vs Conpac Mix Private Limited

Greaves Electric Mobility Limited Vs Megnus Electrovision Private Limited & Anr.

Emerald Enterprises Vs Emerald Valves Private Limited

Star India Private Limited Vs 1XBETCOM & Ors.

Star India Private Limited Vs Crichd.Pk & Ors.

T v Today Network Limited & Anr. Vs Bennett Coleman & Company Limited

Bentley Systems Inc. and Anr. Vs Dineshchandra Agrawal and Ors.

Bennett, Coleman & Company Limited & Anr. Vs Seraphic Divine Beauty Private Limited & Ors.

Star India Private Limited Vs 1XBETCOM & Ors.

Nupur Mehta Vs Bennett Coleman and Company Ltd. and Ors.

Saregama India Limited Vs Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited

Tecniqua India Private Limited Vs Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd. & Anr. Vs Mohd. Salman Trading as M/S Shinewood Pharmaceuticals & Anr.

T v Today Network Limited & Anr. Vs Bennett Coleman & Company Limited