Tis Hazari Court: Man Mohan Sharma, District Judge, partly disposed of a trademark infringement suit filed by Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd., noting that the plaintiffs and the defendants reached a settlement agreement.

Factual Background

Plaintiff was aggrieved by the actions of the Defendants who committed the trademark infringement and further illegally used and masthead which was exclusively owned by the plaintiff.

The statutory proprietary right of exclusive use of the trademarks wherein TIMES is used as distinguishing, key, essential and dominant feature is used was with the plaintiff.

Plaintiff is evidently recognized and distinguished as “Times Group” and the trademark TIMES is identified vis-à-vis the goods, business and services originating or associated with the plaintiff and none else.

Trademark TIMES this constituted a valuable intellectual property owned by the plaintiff.


It was submitted that there are various unknown infringing portals operated by unknown entities which are engaged in unauthorized and illegal use of the trademarks and mastheads of the plaintiff and circulating/broadcasting/communicating the same to users/customers and the general public.

The details of the above-stated websites are unknown and as such have been arrayed as “John Doe/Ashok Kumar” defendants

Adding to the above submissions it was stated that the trademarks, tradenames/mastheads of the plaintiff company were being used by the defendant on their customized and personalized gifts, décor, accessories, etc, are identical and/or similar in order to deceive the public at large to the effect that customized and personalized gifts, décor, accessories etc., are related to the plaintiff in some manner.

It was submitted in the present matter that defendants 1,2,7 and 11 had reached a settlement with the plaintiff and that the said defendants were prepared to suffer an injunction in terms of their respective settlement agreements and that nominal damages of Re 1 had been paid by each of the defendants to the plaintiff.

It was added that the terms of settlement had been reduced into writing in the respective application under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC read with Section 151 CPC and the accompanying settlement agreements.

Analysis and Decision

District Court noted that the terms of respective applications and Settlement Agreements appeared to be within the four corners of law. Hence the said settlement agreement was accepted.

In view of the above, a consent decree was passed and the suit was disposed of vis a vis the plaintiff and defendants 1, 2, 7 and 11.

Also, in view of the statement of plaintiff’s counsel, name of defendant 10 was directed to be removed from array of parties.

Matter to be listed for the appearance of the served defendants and further proceedings on 18-12-2021.[Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. v. Giftcart Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd., CS (Comm) 1932 of 2021, decided on 1-11-2021]

Advocates before the Court:

Rahul Malhotra, Counsel for the plaintiff.

Anushkaa Arora, Counsel for the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 10.

Defendant 7 on video conferencing

Rahul Shukla, Counsel for the defendant 7.

Manish Kumar, Counsel for the defendant 14

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.