Exxon Mobil Corporation & Anr vs Mr. Rajeev Mukul & Anr
2015 Latest Caselaw 6972 Del

$~38
*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+        CS(OS) 2753/2015
         EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION & ANR           ..... Plaintiffs
                       Through : Mr. Sumit Wadhwa, Advocate

                         versus

         MR. RAJEEV MUKUL & ANR                   ..... Defendants
                       Through : Mr. Sidhanth Bambha, Advocate

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                       ORDER

% 15.09.2015

1. On 10.9.2015, the date when the suit was listed for admission,

Mr. Bambha, learned counsel for the defendants had entered

appearance and stated, on instructions, that his clients propose to give

up the plaintiffs' registered trademark, "EXXON" used by them to sell

their products, i.e., eye drops. Accordingly, the defendants were

directed to file an affidavit before the next date of hearing on the said

lines.

2. Though the affidavit is not on record, learned counsel for the

defendants hands over a copy thereof and states that an advance copy

has been furnished to the other side, which fact is confirmed by the

counsel for the plaintiffs. The said affidavit is sworn by Mr. Chander

Shekhar, Assistant Manager of the defendant/company, who has been

authorized through a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the

defendants held on 11.9.2015, to swear and file the present affidavit

in the suit. A copy of the Resolution is enclosed with the affidavit.

3. It has been stated in the affidavit that the defendant

No.2/company undertakes not to use the mark "EXXON" for its

products, i.e., eye drops or for any other product and the said

defendant has already removed the mark, "EXXON" from its website.

The screen shot of the website has been enclosed with the affidavit

and marked as Annexure-B. The defendant/company has also stated

that it has not filed any application before the Registrar of Trademarks

seeking registration of the mark, "EXXON" and they do not have any

current stocks of the eye drops under the mark, "EXXON".

4. Counsel for the plaintiffs states, on instructions, that in view of

the undertakings given by the defendant/company in the affidavit, his

client does not wish to press for the reliefs at prayers (B) to (F). He

however states that the suit may be decreed in terms of the prayers

clause (A). He further states that there are certain internet websites

that mention the defendants' products and services/features under the

trademark, "EXXON", and he shall approach the defendants with

necessary details for their removal.

5. Counsel for the defendants states that the plaintiffs may be

called upon to furnish the details of the aforesaid websites so that

remedial measures can be taken within two weeks therefrom.

6. In view of the submission made herein above, the affidavit that

contains undertakings given on behalf of the defendants, is taken on

record. The defendants shall remain bound by the said undertakings.

7. The suit is decreed in terms of prayer clause (A), while leaving

the parties to bear their own costs.

8. At this stage, learned counsel for the plaintiffs states that in

view of the fact that the parties have arrived at a settlement at the

stage of admission, the plaintiffs are entitled to claim refund of 50%

of the court fees in terms of Section 16-A of the Court Fees Act.

9. In view of the aforesaid submission made by the counsel for the

plaintiffs, the Registry is directed to issue a certificate in favour of the

plaintiffs for refund of 50% of the court fees in terms of Section 16-A

of the Court Fees Act.

10. File be consigned to the record room.

HIMA KOHLI, J SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 sk