'Positive Example Of Out-of-Court Settlement' : Supreme Court Lauds Parties After Trademark Dispute Was Amicably Settled

In a trademark dispute that was resolved through out-of-court settlement, the Supreme Court expressed its hope for the constructive negotiation of such disputes without requiring several rounds of litigation.

“We hope that this serves as a positive example of an out-of-court settlement, demonstrating how disputes can often be constructively negotiated without the need for sparring litigation before a court of law.,” the Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan said.

Essentially, the dispute between the appellants and the respondent pertained to trademark 'Ghadi' infringement. The appellants argued that the trademark had been registered by them for several decades. The impugned mark covered a diverse range of products across multiple classes, including beverages such as tea and coffee.

In view of this, the appellants filed instituted a civil suit alleging trademark infringement. Consequently, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to search the respondent's premises. The seizure was reportedly carried out in compliance with the prescribed procedure and was video-recorded.

However, the respondent filed a case against this search and seizure, alleging that it resulted in offences under the IPC, including wrongful restraint. The appellants also filed a criminal contempt case, alleging that the seizure was in compliance with the Court's order.

Subsequently, an FIR was registered against the appellants, who then approached the High Court seeking quashing of the same. However, the High Court refused to interfere with the proceedings. Against this background, the present matter came before the Supreme Court.

In its earlier order, the Court, while granting an interim stay on the proceedings, also advised to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement. Following this order, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Settlement. Therein, the respondent accepted the exclusive right of the appellant over the trademark “Ghadi”.

“In light of this MoU and the terms agreed upon therein, we deem it appropriate to invoke our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, with an aim to do complete justice between the parties and consequently decree the civil suit pending before the Civil Court.,” the Court marked while quashing all the criminal proceedings initiated by both the parties.

Before the parties, the Court also appreciated the counsel for encouraging the parties to resolve this dispute.

“We also wish to place on record our appreciation for the learned counsel for their efforts in encouraging the parties to resolve their dispute amicably and for effectively bringing this matter to a close.,” the Court said while disposing of the present appeal.

Appearances:

Appellants: Mr. Narendra Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar-i, AOR Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Sataroop Das, Adv. Mr. R.N Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Lakhan Singh, Adv.

Respondents: Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Adv. Ms. Madhusmita Bora, AOR Mr. Pawan Kishore Singh, Adv. Mr. Dipankar Singh, Adv. Ms. Pavithra V., Adv. Mrs. Anupama Sharma, Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR, Ms. Nisha Tiwari, Adv.

Case Name: Murlidhar Gyanchandani and others Versus State of Jharkhand and another., CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5549 OF 2024

Click here to read/ download the order