M/S BLUE HEAVEN COSMETICS PVT LTD v. MIDIE COSMETICS

Delhi High Court · 01 Feb 2023 · 2023:DHC:821
C. Hari Shankar
CS(COMM) 477/2021
CS(COMM) 477/2021
civil settled

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court recorded a mediated settlement resolving a trademark dispute between cosmetic companies, decreeing the suit in terms of the settlement and ordering refund of court fees.

Full Text
Translation output
Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000821
CS(COMM) 477/2021
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CS(COMM) 477/2021 & I.A. 12536/2022
M/S BLUE HEAVEN COSMETICS PVT LTD ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Rishabh Srivastava and Mr. Shivam Kumar Kaushik, Advs.
VERSUS
MIDIE COSMETICS ..... Defendant
Through: Mr. Deepanshu Nagar, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR O R D E R (O R A L)
01.02.2023
JUDGMENT

1. The dispute between the parties stand settled with the intervention of the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. Settlement agreement dated 15th December 2022 has been placed on record. The terms of settlement read thus:

“1. That the First Party agrees and undertakes that the suit CS
(COMM) 477/2021 and connected lAs pending before the Hon'ble
High Court Delhi at New Delhi, or any other suits/proceedings which
may be pending in before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi or any other
court/authority to be decreed, on the following terms and conditions:
a. The Second Party acknowledges the rights of the First
Party in the following marks/packaging,,,, & and undertakes not to use any mark which is deceptively similar/identical to the marks/packaging of the First Party. b. The Second Party also undertakes to change their previous packaging i.e. “,, & ” and use the proposed packaging i.e. and, with respect to Mascara and Eyeliner products or any other packaging style which is dissimilar to the Plaintiffs packaging styles set out at para 1(a). The first Party confirms that it shall have no-objection to the use of such proposed packaging by the Second Party or any modification thereof to the extent that such modification in the mark/packaging is not deceptively similar/identical to packaging style of the First Party. c. The First Party acknowledges the rights of the Second Party in the mark registered by Second Party under the Trademark application No. 3388032 in Class 3 and First Party shall not object to use of such mark by the Second Party or any modifications to such mark, such that the modifications are not deceptively similar/identical to any packaging of First Party. d. That the Second Party has handed over a Demand Draft in the sum of Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Thousand only (Rs.3,50,000/-) bearing no. 415411 dated 12.12.2022 in favour of the First Party as damages and legal costs. The copy of the Demand Draft is annexed hereinafter referred to as Annexure B. e. The Second Party agrees to destroy the impugned products as per the satisfaction of the First Party in presence of representatives of the First Party within four weeks from the signing of the settlement agreement through email or whatsapp with a prior written notice of 2 days by the First Party to the Second party.”

2. Both parties are represented before the Court by learned Counsel who agreed on behalf of the respective clients to be bound by the terms of settlement.

3. As such, nothing survives for adjudication in the present suit. The suit, accordingly, stands decreed in terms of the aforesaid settlement agreement dated 15th December 2022 by which both parties shall remain bound.

4. The Registry is directed to draw up a decree sheet accordingly.

5. The plaintiff would be entitled to refund of the court fees deposited by it.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J

FEBRUARY 1, 2023