Court fees will be refunded in any case where the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties: High Court of Delhi

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 22.07.2021 CS(COMM) 341 2020 N.V. NUTRICIA & ANR. Through: Mr. Praveen Anand Advocate ...... Plaintiffs NUTRICA INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. & ORS. ...... Defendants Through: Mr. Shailen Bhatia Advocate HON BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT JUDGMENT The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing. CS(COMM) 341 2020 & IA No. 7294 2020I.A. 7799 2020I.A. 11593 2020& IA No. 8744 2021r w Sec. 151 CPC) Plaintiffs have filed the present suit inter alia for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark passing off dilution unfair competition misrepresentation damages rendition of accounts delivery up etc. against the defendants. Pertinently plaintiff No.1 N.V. Nutricia is a company incorporated CS(COMM) 341 2020 under the laws of The Netherlands. Plaintiff No.2 Nutricia International Private Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of the plaintiff No.1. The trade mark ‘NUTRICIA’ has been used in association with the products of plaintiff No.1 both as a brand as well as the trade corporate name. According to plaintiffs the trade mark ‘NUTRICIA’ was coined conceived and adopted by plaintiff No.1 in the year 1901 and has since been extensively used by the plaintiff No.1 as a brand as well as the dominant and operative part of its corporate name. Over the years as the plaintiff No.1 and its group companies have expanded across the globe and established themselves as leaders in the specialised nutrition market the trade mark ‘NUTRICIA’ has become progressively well known across the world and has become exclusively associated with the plaintiff No.1 and its group companies. The plaintiff No.1 also has several registrations for the trade mark ‘NUTRICIA’ in its favour in various other countries apart from India. Thus the trade mark ‘NUTRICIA’ is solely and exclusively associated with the plaintiffs. The Defendant No.1 “Nivisa Healthcare Pvt. Limited” formerly known as Nutrica International Private Limited is a company incorporated under The Companies Act 2013 and is in the business of manufacturing CS(COMM) 341 2020 supplying and selling infant food in the form of health supplement protein powders under the trade mark and trade name ‘NUTRICA’. Defendant No.2 Mr. Nitin Rohatgi is the director of the defendant No.1 and defendant No.3 is a third party. Defendants No.2 and 3 came to be employees of the plaintiff No.2 but after their resignation they were discharged from their services on 30.06.2019 and 04.12.2017 respectively. Further in February 2020 an Investigator of plaintiffs revealed that the defendants were in the business of manufacturing supplying and selling health supplement protein powders for infants under the trade mark and trade name ‘NUTRICA’. Further plaintiffs came to know that the defendants have applied for trade mark registration for the label under class 5 of the classification followed by India’s Trade Mark Registry. According to plaintiffs defendant Nos. 2 and 3 being ex employees of the plaintiff No. 2 were clearly aware of the Plaintiffs’ rights and goodwill in the mark ‘NUTRICIA’ and still they deliberately and dishonestly adopted the mark ‘NUTRICA’ . In such a view of the matter the present suit was filed by the plaintiffs seeking: “A decree of permanent injunction restraining each of the defendants its partners directors proprietors subsidiaries CS(COMM) 341 2020 officers servants franchisees affiliates agents distributors stockists representatives licensees and anyone acting for or on their behalf directly or indirectly as the case may be a) from advertising manufacturing mentioning on their websites dealing in any manner whatsoever or otherwise using including as a part of a corporate name domain name or trade name the selling sale mark ‘NUTRICA’ or the label any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff No.1’s registered trade mark ‘NUTRICIA’ especially in relation to the business of manufacturing or selling food supplements amounting to infringement b) from advertising manufacturing mentioning on their websites dealing in any manner whatsoever or otherwise using including as a part of a corporate name domain name or trade name the selling sale mark ‘NUTRICA’ or the label or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ trade mark ‘NUTRICIA’ especially in relation to the business of manufacturing or selling food supplements amounting to passing off c) from performing any actions which is likely to lead to the dilution or tarnishment of the Plaintiffs’ trade mark as well as corporate name or amounting to unfair competition and d) from advertising manufacturing mentioning on their websites dealing in any manner whatsoever or otherwise using including as a part of a corporate name domain name or trade name the selling sale CS(COMM) 341 2020 mark ‘NUTRICA’ or the label or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ registered trade mark ‘NUTRICIA’ or performing any other action which amounts to misrepresentation.” Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submits that in terms of mediated Settlement Agreement dated 15.03.2021 the present suit has to be decreed in terms of prayers made in Para Nos. 61(b) andof the plaint. Further submitted that it is agreed that in lieu thereof plaintiffs shall not raise the claim of damages mentioned in prayer made in Para Nos.to h) of the plaint. Learned counsel for defendants has reverted in positive and he submits that the present suit can be decreed in terms of prayers in Para Nos. 61(b) andof the plaint in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants. and lawful. This Court has gone through the terms of settlement incorporated in the Settlement Agreement dated 15.03.2021and the same is found to be valid In view of aforesaid the present suit is decreed in terms of prayers in Para Nos. 61 (b) and of the plaint in favour of plaintiffs and CS(COMM) 341 2020 against the defendants. Decree sheet be accordingly drawn. The Settlement Agreement dated 15.03.2021 shall form part of the decree sheet. 10. At this stage learned counsel for plantiffs submits that in view of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act 1870 the plaintiffs seeks refund of entire court fees as the dispute inter se parties stands amicably settled through mediation and before commencing of pleadings. 11. A Division Bench of this Court in Nutan Batra Vs. M s. Buniyaad Associates 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12916 relying upon decisoin of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited 8 SCC 24 had allowed an appeal against the order of refusal of refund of entire court fee in a suit. Further a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Munish Kalra Vs. Kiran Madan and Others 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8021 taking into account the fact that the dispute stands amicably setteld between the parties had relied upon decisions in Afcons Infrastructure Limited and Nutan Batra Supra) and directed refund of the entire court fees. 12. Concurring with afore noted decisions the plaintiffs are entitled to refund of entire court fees. Registry is directed to issue necessary certificate authorization in favour of the plaintiffs to seek refund before the appropriate CS(COMM) 341 2020 13. With aforesaid directions the suit and pending applications are JUDGE SURESH KUMAR KAIT) authorities. accordingly disposed of. JULY 22 2021 CS(COMM) 341 2020 

Summary: The plaintiff will be entitled to getting a refund of the court fees in a case where the dispute has been settled amicably by the parties without the need for intervention from the court. This was held by a single member bench of the High Court of Delhi consisting of Justice Suresh Kumar Kaiti in the case of N.V. Nutrica &amp; Another v. Nutrica International Pvt. Ltd &amp; Others [CS (COMM) 341/2020] on the 22nd of July 2021. Plaintiff No.1, NV Nutrica is a company incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands which specialises in nutrition products. Plaintiff No.2, Nutrica International Private Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of plaintiff No.1. The trade mark NUTRICA was coined, conceived and adopted in the year 1901 and has been used extensively ever since as a brand as well as the operative part of its corporate name. Over the years Nutrica and its group companies have expanded across the globe and established themselves as leaders in the specialised nutrition market. Along with this the trademark Nutrica has become very well-known and easily identifiable across nations including India.  Defendant No.1, Nivisa Healthcare Pvt Limited is a company incorporated under The Companies Act 2013 and is in the business of manufacturing and selling infant food in the form of health supplement protein powders. The defendant formerly went by the name Nutrica International Private Limited and continues to market its products under the trade name Nutrica . An investigation revealed that the defendents even went so far as to apply for trade mark registration for NV Nutrica’s label under class 5 of the classification followed by India’s Trade Mark Registry. Defendant No. 2 and No. 3 were both former employees of the plaintiff who now work at senior managerial positions at defendant No.1. It has been submitted by the plaintiffs that defendants 2 and 3 were fully aware of the plaintiffs rights and goodwill on the mark Nutrica, yet deliberately and dishonestly adopted the trade mark. In this context, the plaintiffs filed the suit before the Court seeking permanent injunction restraining each of the defenants, their partners, directors, proprietors, subsidariesm affiliates, franchises, officers, servants, agents, distributors, stockists, representatives, licensees and anyone acting on their behalf from selling, manufacturing, advertising or dealing in any manner using, including as a part of the their corporate name or trade mark, the mark Nutrica, the label or any other mark that looks identical or deceptively similar. A mediated settlement agreement was also before the court where both the parties had come to an amicable settlement over the dispute.