Delhi High Court - Orders
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd vs Nettle Pharmaceuticals P Ltd & Ors on 7 April, 2022
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:09.04.2022
15:24:47
$~6 (2020 List)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS (COMM) 494/2020 & I.A. 10429/2020
SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Sachin Gupta, Mr. Jasleen Kaur,
Mr. Pratyush Rao, Ms. Snehal Singh &
Ms. Swati Meena, Advocates.
versus
NETTLE PHARMACEUTICALS P LTD & ORS. ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Rohit Arora, Advocate for D-3
(M-8130660119)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 07.04.2022
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of the Plaintiff's trademark, and reliefs for passing off, unfair competition, delivery up, rendition of accounts of profits/damages, etc., in respect of the Plaintiff's trademarks 'ROSUVAS' and 'ROSUVAS EZ', which has been used by it since 2003. The Plaintiffs have also registered these trademarks in 2001 and 2008. The grievance in this case was that the Defendants started manufacturing and selling medicinal products under the trademark 'ROUSVA'. An ex-parte injunction order was passed on 11th November, 2020.
3. The parties have now arrived at a settlement in terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 10th March, 2022 under the aegis of the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. As per the said settlement, the Defendants have recognized the Plaintiff's right in the mark 'ROSUVAS'. They have also Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:09.04.2022 15:24:47 given undertakings not to use the mark 'ROUSVA' or any other mark identical and similar to the mark 'ROSUVAS'. Further, the Defendants have stated that there are no existing stocks of finish products, stationary packaging, or publicity material under the mark and the materials seized during the local commission will be destroyed. The settlement terms are contained in paragraphs 6(i) to 6(xi).
4. The agreement is duly digital signed by the ld. Mediator. The consent emails on behalf of the parties have also been appended. The Court has perused the terms of settlement. The same are lawful and there is no impediment to recording the same. The terms shall be binding on all the parties and anyone acting for/on their behalf. Accordingly, the suit is decreed in terms of paragraphs 6(i) to 6(xi) of the Settlement Agreement. The decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
5. Considering that the matter has been settled at an early stage and there are no damages payable under the settlement agreement, the Plaintiff is entitled to a refund of 100% of the Court fee, be refunded to the Plaintiff, through counsel.
6. All pending applications are disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
APRIL 7, 2022/dk/ms