- Case number
- C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 59/2022
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Prathiba M. Singh
- Outcome
- Withdrawn on settlement
Headnote
A twenty-seven year old dispute over a tea mark, running through an ex parte injunction in 1996, its confirmation in 1997, a Division Bench order in 2001 holding the mark descriptive and laudatory and discharging the injunction, and a Supreme Court remand in 2004. The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench's enunciation of the law had been wrong: a descriptive trade mark may be entitled to protection if it has assumed a secondary meaning which identifies it with a particular product or as being from a particular source. The suit and the appeal against the Registrar's dismissal of the opposition were finally resolved by a co-existence agreement under which one party uses the mark only with its house name as a prefix, will not use it by itself, will not oppose the other's future applications for it, and both withdraw their pending proceedings against each other.
Disposition
Both the suit and the appeal dismissed as withdrawn in view of the co-existence agreement, which the Court recorded as lawful and binding on the parties and all acting on their behalf.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.