Mw Eat Ltd vs New Masala Zone & Anr
2015 Latest Caselaw 2849 Del

$~28.
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+    CS(OS) 3189/2014 and I.A. 22496/2014, 20420/2014
     MW EAT LTD                                 ..... Plaintiff
                    Through: Mr. Arjun Mukherjee, Advocate

                       versus

     NEW MASALA ZONE & ANR                   ..... Defendants
                  Through: Mr. Hemant Malhotra, Advocate with
                  defendant No.2 in person.

     CORAM:
     HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

                       ORDER

% 09.04.2015

1. Counsels for the parties state that they have already resolved

their inter se dispute inasmuch as the defendants had filed an

application, registered as I.A. 22496/2014, wherein it was stated that

they have stopped using the trademark/name "New Masala Zone" and

the defendant No.1/restaurant operating in the name and style of

"New Masala Zone" had been shutdown w.e.f. 28.10.2014.

2. On 17.11.2014, counsel for the plaintiff had stated that if the

defendants undertake to the plaintiff that they shall not use the

aforesaid trademark/name, "New Masala Zone" or any other

trademark/name, which is identical or deceptively similar to the said

trademark/name, the plaintiff would be ready to settle the dispute

with the defendants.

3. Today, counsel for the plaintiff states that the suit may be

decreed in terms of prayer clause (i) in para 44.

4. Counsel for the defendants states on instructions that he does

not have any objection to the aforesaid request.

5. Accordingly, the suit is decreed in terms of the prayer clause (i)

in para 44 and the defendants, their directors, partners, proprietors,

servants, agents etc. are restrained from using the trademark/name,

"New Masala Zone" or any other trademark/name, which is identical or

deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark/name, "MASALA ZONE"

in relation to restaurants, hotels, hospitality and other allied services

including on their website or as part of their advertisement, which may

result in passing off, misrepresentation and dilution.

6. Counsel for the plaintiff states that in view of the fact that the

defendants concede the decree in terms of prayer clause (i) in para

44, he does not wish to press the remaining reliefs sought in the suit.

7. Accordingly, the suit is decreed on the aforesaid lines, while

leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

8. The suit is disposed of alongwith the pending applications.

HIMA KOHLI, J APRIL 09, 2015 rkb/sk