Delhi High Court - Orders
Velcro Bvba vs Veilcro Infrastructures Private ... on 2 August, 2021
Author: Jayant Nath
Bench: Jayant Nath
$~OS-11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 261/2019 & I.As. 9326-9327/2021
VELCRO BVBA ... Plaintiff
Through Mr. Dushyant K. Mahant, Mr. Urfee
Roomi and Mr. Vishesh Kumar,
Advs.
Versus
VEILCRO INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE
LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS
VELCRO INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE
LIMITED) & ORS. ... Defendants
Through Ms.Amrita Panda and Ms.Mansa
Shukla, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
ORDER
% 02.08.2021 This hearing is conducted through video conferencing. I.A. 9327/2021(exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
I.A. 9326/2021(for early hearing) This is an application for early hearing. Application is allowed.
CS(COMM) 261/2019
1. On 07.04.2021 this court has passed the following order:
"Learned counsel for the defendant states that without prejudice to the rights and contentions, the defendant is not using the mark VEILCRO or any other mark that is similar to the mark plaintiff's mark VELCRO. Let an affidavit to the above effect be filed by the defendant within two weeks.Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NIRMLA TIWARI Signing Date:04.08.2021 12:18:24
After some arguments, the only issue that survives is the issue of litigation cost of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendant seek some time to take instructions.
At request, adjourned to 28.04.2021."
2. The defendants have filed an affidavit in compliance of the aforesaid order dated 07.04.2021.
3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff is satisfied with the contents of the affidavit of the defendants.
4. It is also agreed by learned counsel for the parties that the defendant shall withdraw any applications filed for registration of the trademark VEILCRO or any other variant thereof.
5. The other issue comes to litigation costs.
6. According to learned counsel for the plaintiff the plaintiff has spent a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- on litigation.
7. Learned counsel for the defendants state that such costs are wholly arbitrary and grossly exaggerated. She further states that the Managing Director of the Company is indisposed.
8. In the interest of justice, costs are quantified at Rs.2,00,000/- and are awarded in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant will reimburse the said cost within eight weeks.
9. As the matter has been settled at an initial stage, plaintiff is entitled to refund of full court fees. It is ordered accordingly.
10. Binding the parties to the above, the suit stands disposed of. All pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.
JAYANT NATH, J.
AUGUST 2, 2021/st Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NIRMLA TIWARI Signing Date:04.08.2021 12:18:24