Havells India Limited vs Rajadhani Knitwear & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 5535 Del

$~39.
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+       CS(COMM) 68/2016 and I.A. 1419/2016
        HAVELLS INDIA LIMITED                      ..... Plaintiff
                     Through: Mr. Sudeep Chatterjee, Advocate

                          versus

        RAJADHANI KNITWEAR & ORS                 ..... Defendants
                     Through: Mr. Umesh Mishra, Adv. for D-1.
                     Mr. Hemant Manjani, Advocate for D-2 to D-5.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

                          ORDER

% 24.08.2016

1. This order is in continuation of the orders dated 21.07.2016 and 25.07.2016.

2. On 21.07.2016, counsel for the defendants No.2 to 5 had assured the Court that their clients would remove all the images of the infringing products from the facebook account and they shall file an affidavit undertaking inter alia that they would not violate/infringe the design mark, "HAVELLS" and the logo/stylized writing of the artistic work, "HAVELLS" in future.

3. On 25.07.2016, counsel for the defendants No.2 and 3 had stated that he had handed over a copy of the affidavit filed by his clients in another suit instituted by M/s Marico Limited against them, which had been accepted in the said proceedings. In response, counsel for the plaintiff had stated that his

clients would be satisfied if the defendants No.2 and 3 file a similar affidavit on the condition that they must admit that there was an infringement on their part.

4. Pursuant thereto, an affidavit has been filed by the defendant No.2 undertaking inter alia that the defendants No.2 to 5 shall not use the plaintiff's trademark, "HAVELLS" in any way/form.

5. Counsel for the plaintiff states on instructions that the plaintiff is satisfied with the averments made in the aforesaid affidavit and requests that the suit be decreed in terms of prayer clause 68(a) and (c). Counsel for the defendants No.2 and 3 has no objection to the said request.

6. As for the defendant No.1, on 25.07.2016, counsel for the defendant No.1 had stated that it had not executed any order placed on it by the defendants No.2 and 3 for manufacturing T-shirts, as alleged in the plaint and it had no manufacturing facility in Delhi and is simply trading in sale/purchase of T-shirts. He states today that he does not have any objection to the suit being decreed in terms of prayer clause 68(a) and (c).

7. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, the suit is decreed in terms of prayer clause 68(a) and (c) of the plaint, while leaving the parties to bear their own expenses. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.

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

HIMA KOHLI, J AUGUST 24, 2016 rkb