Exphar S.A. & Anr. vs Atlanta Biological Pvt. Ltd.
2021 Latest Caselaw 3349 Del

$~2(2020)
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                              Date of decision: 07.12.2021
+     CS(COMM) 523/2020 & IA No. 11110-11/2020
      EXPHAR S.A. & ANR.                                    ..... Plaintiffs
                     Through:            Mr. Pravin Anand & Ms. Prachi
                                         Agarwal, Advocates

                           Versus

      ATLANTA BIOLOGICAL PVT. LTD.           ..... Defendant
                   Through: Ms. Kanchan Yadav & Ms. Surbhi
                            Anand, Advocates

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

                           J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. The present suit being a "commercial dispute" has been filed by the

plaintiffs seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its

Directors, servants and agents, distributors, wholesalers, dealers retailers or

any other person acting for and on their behalf from manufacturing,

exporting, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing

in any manner, in India with regard to products and services bearing the

trademark/logo VERZIL by itself or with other words or variant or any other

mark/logo which is deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered trademark

or in any other manner whatsoever, including but not limited to trademark

VERZOL as is likely to lead to infringement of the registered trademark

or any other mark/logo and the depiction of the same in artistic

writing style, lay out, get up, colour scheme along with its other essential

features, and arrangement in any material form which may be identical with

or deceptively similar to it which is likely to lead to passing off of the

defendant's goods and/or business as or for those of plaintiffs or amounts to

dilution and tarnishment of the plaintiffs' trademarks, get up, colour

combination etc. and copyright infringement besides delivery up and

destruction of all the impugned material, damages of INR 2,00,00,000 and

rendition of accounts of profits of the defendant account of sale of the

products under the impugned mark/logo.

2. On 24.02.2021, learned counsel for defendant had submitted before

this Court that defendant has no objection to the decree of permanent

injunction being passed against the defendant, subject to the plaintiffs giving

up the claim for damages and costs.

3. In response to the aforesaid, learned counsel for plaintiffs on

instructions had submitted that plaintiffs shall not press for damages and

costs against defendant in view of statement made by defendant. However,

submitted that plaintiff's trade mark is a well known trade mark and

plaintiffs shall invite a judgment on this aspect.

4. Similarly, learned counsel for defendant had also raised objection on

the aspect of territorial jurisdiction but did not press it in view of statement

of learned counsel for plaintiffs.

5. Today, Mr. Pravin Anand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

plaintiffs has submitted that in view of concession of counsel representing

both the sides recorded in the order of 24.02.2021, the present suit be

decreed in terms of Prayer Clause mentioned in Para-67(i) to (iv) and

plaintiffs give up their claims with regard to prayers mentioned in Para-

67(v) to (ix). However, it is submitted that the aspect of "plaintiff's trade

mark being well known" be left open for consideration in any other

proceedings, if so required.

6. The aforesaid submission advanced by learned counsel for plaintiffs is

consented to by learned counsel for defendant.

7. In view of the above, the present suit is decreed in terms of Prayer

Clause mentioned in Para-67(i) to (iv) of the present suit, which shall form

part of decree. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.

8. The present suit and pending applications are accordingly disposed of.

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE DECEMBER 07, 2021 r