Mr. Davinder Kumar Jain And Ors. vs Anil Sobhraj Talreja And Anr.
2006 Latest Caselaw 39 Del

JUDGMENT

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

1. IA. No. 229/2006 is an application under Order 23 Rule 3 moved jointly by the plaintiffs and the defendants for recording the compromise and settlement and for disposing of the suit in terms of the said compromise. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction, restraining infringement of trade mark, passing off, damages and rendition of accounts.

2. In terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the defendants acknowledge the plaintiffs to be the proprietor of the trademark LUXOR in a variety of goods and services. The defendants have also acknowledged that they have infringed the plaintiffs' trademark and passed off their goods as those of the plaintiffs by the adoption and use of the mark LUXORPLY in respect of plywood. Paragraph 3 of the application contains an undertaking given by the defendants that they, their directors, officers, servants, agents and all others acting for and on their behalf will not, in future, infringe in any manner and use the mark LUXORPLY or any other mark which is identical to or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' trademark LUXOR in relation to their products including plywood, building materials, laminates, block-boards etc. The defendants have also agreed to be liable to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs as liquidated damages in case they are found to be in breach of the present compromise, at any time.

3. The defendant No.2 had applied for registration of various trademarks including LUXOR VENEER, LUXOR PLY, LUXOR MDF and LUXOR. These applications as well as the marks stand assigned to the plaintiff. The other terms of the settlement and compromise are set out in the application in detail. The said application is signed by Mr D.K. Jain who is the plaintiff No.1 and is also the constituted attorney of plaintiffs 2 and 3. The application is also signed by Mr Anil Sobhraj Talreja who is the defendant No.1 and Director of the defendant No.2 Both these persons have filed affidavits in support of this compromise application. The compromise application has also been singed by the advocates for the parties. The application is exhibited as Exhibit C-1.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I have examined the application for compromise and find that the same is a lawful. Accordingly, there is no impediment in the passing of a decree in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. The suit is decreed in terms of the compromise. This application stands allowed. The application exhibit C-1 shall form part of the decree. No order as to costs.