Lurn Inc vs Ms Teamlease Edtech Limited on 21 July, 2022

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Lurn Inc vs Ms Teamlease Edtech Limited on 21 July, 2022

1. The present suit was filed by the Plaintiff seeking permanent injunction, restraining infringement of trademark, passing off, rendition of accounts of illegal profits, damages and delivery up in respect of the Plaintiff's mark 'LURN'. The Plaintiff in the present suit is Lurn Inc. which is in the business of offering online and offline training courses in respect of business education which target entrepreneurs, executives, etc. The Plaintiff adopted the mark 'LURN' in the year 2001 and registered the domain name https://lurn.com/. The Defendant uses the mark 'LURNINGO' in respect of online research and education. The case of the Plaintiff was that the Defendant's mark is identical and the services provided by the Defendant are also identical. Thus, there was a chance of confusion between the classes of customers who may be availing the services.

2. Vide order dated 24th November, 2021, an ex parte injunction was Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 587/2021 Page 1 of 3 By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:22.07.2022 15:42:15 granted in favour of the Plaintiff. Thereafter, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC was moved by the Defendant and the Plaintiff moved an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC. On the next date being 21 st March, 2022, some submissions were made and certain proposals were discussed by the parties. Today, an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC has been filed reporting that the parties have amicably resolved their disputes.

3. The said application contains the settlement terms in paragraph 3(a) to 3(i). As per the said agreement, the Defendants have acknowledged the Plaintiff's ownership for registrations in the trademark 'LURN' and the logo . The Defendant has also undertaken not to use the said marks or other derivative variant mark(s) 'LURNINGO', and logos or any other visually or structurally similar marks, etc. The Defendant has also assured the Plaintiff that it would cease use of the impugned mark(s) within a period of 45 days and shall remove the same from its website, mobile application and social media platforms. The Defendant has also agreed to withdraw its trademark application for the mark 'LURNINGO'. Ld. Counsel for the Defendant submits that within two weeks, the said letters would be filed for withdrawal of Application No. 3252269 in Class 41 for 'PROVIDING OF ONLINE EDUCATION COURSES INCLUDED IN CLASS 41'. The Defendant also undertakes that it has not filed any other trademark application for the impugned marks and will not file such applications in the future. The Defendant further undertakes to take down its mobile applications which use the impugned mark and shall transfer the domain name(s) bearing the impugned marks to the Plaintiff within 45 days. Finally, the Defendant has agreed to destroy any material bearing the impugned mark.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 587/2021 Page 2 of 3 By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:22.07.2022 15:42:15

4. The Court has perused the settlement agreement. The terms of the same are lawful and there is no impediment in recording the same. The same is signed by the parties as also supported by the affidavits of the parties. The parties and all others acting for or on their behalf, shall be bound by the assurances and the undertakings given by them in the settlement agreement.

5. Insofar as the application seeking registration of the impugned mark is concerned, the Registrar of Trademarks upon receiving the letter from the Defendant withdrawing its Trademark Application No.3252269 shall pass appropriate orders, and update the e-register portal accordingly, within four weeks from receipt of the Defendant's letter.

6. Accordingly, the suit is decreed in terms of the paragraphs 34(a), (b) and (c) of the plaint, as also in terms of paragraphs 3(a) to (i) of this settlement agreement. The reliefs in paragraph 34(d), (f) and (g) of the plaint are given up. Insofar as relief number 34(e) is concerned for delivery up, the same shall be complied with by the Defendant in terms of paragraph 3(i) of the settlement agreement. Paragraphs 3(a) to (i) shall form part of the decree. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. All pending applications are also disposed of.

7. Considering the fact that the dispute has been settled between the parties, 50% of the Court fee is directed to be refunded through the ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff.

8. Copy of today's order be supplied to the Trademark Registry (Address:

Trademarks Registry, New Delhi, Boudhik Sampada Bhawan, Plot No. 32, Sector 14, Dwarka, New Delhi-110078; Email: [email protected], [email protected]).

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J JULY 21, 2022/Rahul/MS Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 587/2021 Page 3 of 3 By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:22.07.2022 15:42:15

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders