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 & 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 & 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 & 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.
Court, after hearing the case from both sides and evidence scrutinized, accepted the proposition of settlement and concluded the matter.