Court grants permission to withdraw IPR matter, in pursuance of settlement between the parties: Delhi High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 09.09.2021 CS(COMM) 330 2019 AMIT TALWAR AND ORS. ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mrs.Bindra Rana Ms.Priya Adlakha Ms.Tanvi Bhatnagar Advs. VIVEK TALWAR AND ORS. ..... Defendants Through: Mr.Mayank Rustagi Adv. for Defendant Nos.1 & 2. HON BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT JUDGMENTThe hearing has been conducted through video conferencing. I.A. 11483 2021In a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the registered trademark copyright PARKO on packaging label of goods passing off damages and unfair trade practice the present application has been jointly filed by plaintiffs as well as defendant no.1 for issuance of decree in terms of Para no. 6 of the application as settlement has been arrived at between the parties. Plaintiffs have also prayed for withdrawal of the present suit against defendant nos.2 to 10. They have CS(COMM) 330 2019 further prayed that goods seized by the Local Commissioner at the premises of M S Malik Traders 1553 Gurudwara Road Kotla Mubarakpur New Delhi and handed over to Mr. Amar Nath Chug on superdari be released. As per the plaintiffs plaintiff no.1 along with his father Sh. Charanjit Talwar and Ram Gopal Khanna started business for manufacturing and trading in sanitary goods and fittings selling and built up a partnership firm namely "Parkash Brassware Industries" and they started using a unique word PARKO for label packaging of their goods. After the demise of parents of Plaintiff no.2 in 1997 he became the sole proprietor of the Prakash Brassware Industries and has individually applied for registration of the trademark PARKO including trademarks PARKO & PARKOVIC. From 1986 onwards he is the only owner of the copyright in the original artistic work of logos and PARKO. It is further stated that the plaintiff No.3 has also been authorised by plaintiff No.2 to use the trademark PARKO. On 02.04.2010 plaintiff No.2 entered into a Family Settlement with his sons and wife in which it was mutually decided that defendant No.l will resign from the Directorship of plaintiff No.3. Plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.l entered into an Agreement CS(COMM) 330 2019 on 03.07.2010 wherein plaintiff No.2 is the first and prior adopter of the trademark PARKO for bathroom fitting and cognate and allied goods. The proprietorship of the plaintiff No.2 on the trademark PARKO was duly acknowledged and it was also agreed that defendant No.l will not use the trademark PARKO but he will be allowed to use the word PARKO in conjunction with VIC i.e. PARKVIC or any other word. However despite signing the agreement dated 03.07.2010 defendants applied for identical trade mark in the year 2010 and further disputes arose between the parties. Vide order dated 12.07.2019 matter was referred to Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre for exploring possibility of settlement however mediation failed. Today learned counsel for both the parties submit that plaintiff no.1 and 2 and defendant no.1 i.e. Shri Vivek Talwar belong to the same family and they have agreed to amicably settle and compromise the present suit in accordance with the terms as stated in Paragraph no. 6 of the present application as well as in an additional clause mentioned in an email which is annexed along with the application. Contents of additional clause are incorporated in Paragraph no. 6 as Sub Para V and the same read as under: 6. V. That the Defendant No. 1 by himself his partners officers employees servants agents representatives CS(COMM) 330 2019 dealers stockiest distributors retailers successors or any one claiming under him directly or indirectly shall be allowed to use the trademark PARKOVIC only in straight font as agreed in the trade mark Agreement in terms of CS(Comm.) 330 2019 by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the Plaintiffs shall have no objection whatsoever to such user." the order dated 26.08.2019 passed Learned counsel for the parties also undertake to abide by the terms of the settlement as narrated in the present application as well as in the additional clause. Learned counsel for plaintiffs pray that the present suit be decreed in aforesaid terms qua defendant no.1 and seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the present suit qua defendant nos.2 to 10. Accordingly the present joint application filed by the parties is allowed. The suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and against defendant no.1 in terms mentioned in Paragraph No.6 of this application along with newly incorporated sub para 6 which shall form part of decree sheet. Decree sheet be accordingly drawn. CS(COMM) 330 2019 In view of order passed in I.A. 11483 2021the present suit is decreed qua defendant no.1 in view of the terms mentioned in Paragraph No.6 of this application along with newly CS(COMM) 330 2019 incorporated sub para 6which shall form part of decree sheet. Decree Counsel for the plaintiffs seeks permission to withdraw the present sheet be accordingly drawn. suit qua defendant nos.2 to 10. 10. Permission is granted. SEPTEMBER 09 2021 ab 11. Pending application if any stands disposed of as infructuous. SURESH KUMAR KAIT) CS(COMM) 330 2019 

Summary: Delhi High Court in the recent matter grants the permission to withdraw IPR matter, by the virtue of settlement between the parties. The above was observed in the recent matter of Amit Talwar &amp; Ors. v. Vivek Talwar [CS (COMM) 330/2019]. The proceeding of the said case was presided by a single judge bench, consisting of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait on September 8th, 2021. The facts of the above case are as follows. Plaintiff, along with his father Sh. Charanjit Talwar and Ram Gopal Khanna started business for manufacturing and trading in sanitary goods and fittings selling and built-up a partnership firm namely “Parkash Brassware Industries” and they started using a unique word PARKO for label/packaging of their goods. After the demise of parents of Plaintiff in 1997, he became the sole proprietor of the Prakash Brassware Industries and has individually applied for registration of the trademark PARKO including trademarks PARKO &amp; PARKOVIC. Since 1986, he claimed to be the only owner of copyrights of the original artistic work of logos. The counsel on the behalf of the plaintiffs also submitted that Plaintiff no. 3 was allowed to use the logo, as it had been authorized to the said plaintiff. It was further contended that plaintiff No.2 entered into a Family Settlement with his sons and wife in which it was mutually decided that defendant will resign from the Directorship of plaintiff No.3. Plaintiff No.2 and defendant entered into an Agreement wherein plaintiff No.2 was declared as the first and prior adopter of the trademark PARKO for bathroom fitting and cognate and allied goods. The proprietorship of the plaintiff No.2 on the trademark PARKO was duly acknowledged and it was also agreed that defendant shall not use the trademark PARKO but he will be allowed to use the word PARKO in conjunction with VIC i.e. PARKVIC or any other word. However, despite the agreement, defendants applied for identical trade mark in the year 2010 and further disputes arose between the parties. In furtherance to the above, the matter was then referred to mediation &amp; conciliation. But the said mediation failed. The matter was then adjudicated to the court in lieu of a settlement application filed wherein defendant shall be using PARKOVIC which shall not be subjected to any IPR inflictions of plaintiffs.