Verizon Trademark Services Llc & ORS. v. Verizon Computers

$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 740/2025, I.A. 17631/2025, I.A. 17632/2025 & I.A. 17635/2025 VERIZON TRADEMARK SERVICES LLC & ORS.

.....Plaintiffs Through:

Mr. Pravin Anand, Ms. Vaishali R Mittal & Mr.

Shivang Sharma, Advocates (through VC).

versus VERIZON COMPUTERS .....Defendant Through:

Mr.

Abdulla Naseeh VT & Ms.

Abreeda Banu, Advocates (through VC).

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

O R D E R

% 16.10.2025 1.

Vide order dated 25.07.2025, the Summons were issued in this Suit and I.A. 17631/2025 and the interim injunction was granted restraining the Defendants from using the Trade Mark 'VERIZON COMPUTERS' or any other mark which is identical or deceptively similar to the Trade Mark of the Plaintiffs 'VERIZON' ("Plaintiffs' Trade Mark") . 2.

The learned Counsel for the Defendant submits that the Defendant has filed the Written Statement and has stated that the Defendant has already changed the name of the shop to "MM Computers & IT Solutions". The learned Counsel for the Defendant further submits that the Defendant is running a small shop and has no intention to commit any infringement of the Plaintiffs' Trade Mark.

3.

Considering the averments made in the Written Statement, the learned The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Counsel for the Plaintiffs submits that the Plaintiffs does not press for the relief of damages and costs against the Defendant, if a decree of permanent injunction as prayed for in Paragraph No. 83 (i), (ii) and (iii) is passed. 4.

The learned Counsel for the Defendant submits that in view of the stand taken in the Written Statement, the Defendant has no objection if a decree in terms of Paragraph No. 83 (i), (ii) and (iii) is passed against the Defendant. 5.

Accordingly, the Suit is decreed in terms of Paragraph No. 83 (i), (ii) and (iii). Let the Decree Sheet be drawn up accordingly. 6.

In view of the above, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submits that the below two URLs as mentioned in Paragraph No. 7 of the Replication showing the use of Plaintiffs' Trade Mark are required to be suspended, blocked, disabled, removed and taken down:

i. https://www.justdial.com/Kasaragod/Verizon-ComputersOpposite-Karnataka-Bank-Adkathbail/9999P4994-4994220423113752- Y4J2_BZDET ii. https://www.facebook.com/groups/971366304581271/about 7.

The Defendant is directed to suspend, block, disable, remove and take down the two URLs mentioned above and the Plaintiffs are at liberty to bring this Order to the notice of the concerned platforms for taking down, suspend, block, disable and remove the same within a period of 72 hours from the Plaintiffs' notifying, if the Defendant fails to take down within a period of two days from the date of this Order.

8.

In view of the fact that the matter has been settled at an early stage, the Registry is directed to issue a certificate of refund of 100% of the Court Fees in favour of the Plaintiff, in terms of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870. 9.

It is however, made clear that in case any dispute arises between the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Parties and in the event, either Party approaches this Court for enforcement of the Settlement Agreement / Decree, the said Party or Parties will become liable to pay the entire Court Fees thereon.

10.

Accordingly, the Suit and all pending Applications stand disposed of. 11.

The next date, i.e., 15.01.2026 before the learned Joint Registrar stands cancelled.

TEJAS KARIA, J OCTOBER 16, 2025/ 'A'

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.