0

Trademark Infringement specks about the unauthorized use of mark/logo by the person who is not authorized to do so: High Court Of New Delhi.

The 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, was held in the judgement passed by a single bench judge comprising HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE  SURESH KUMAR KAIT, in the matter AMIT TALWAR AND ORS.V. VIVEK TALWAR AND ORS.

The present application has been jointly filed by plaintiffs as well as defendant no.1 for issuance of the decree in terms of Para no. 6 of the application, as a settlement has been arrived at between the parties. Also, the suit is all about, a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the registered trademark/copyright PARKO on packaging/label of goods, passing off, damages and unfair trade practices.

As per the plaintiffs, plaintiff no.1 along with his father Sh. Charanjit Talwar and Ram Gopal Khanna started a 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 the parents of Plaintiff no.2 in 1997, he became the sole proprietor of the Prakash Brassware Industries then they have mentioned that plaintiff No.3 has also been authorised by plaintiff No.2 to use the trademark PARKO.

This agreement plays an important role that is were, Plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.l entered into an Agreement CS(COMM) 330/2019 Page 3 of 5 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 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. PARK VIC or any other word.

In Vide order dated 12.07.2019, the matter was referred to Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre for exploring the possibility of settlement, however, mediation failed. Later, 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 following the terms. Meanwhile  Learned counsel for plaintiffs pray that the present suit is 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 (V), which shall form part of the decree sheet. Decree sheet is accordingly drawn”. Dated on 9th September 2021.

Click here for judgment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat