Bayerische Motoren Werke Ag v. Om Balajee Automobile (India) Private Limited
$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 292/2017, I.A. 4800/2017, I.A. 4801/2017 & I.A. 15971/2018 BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AG ..... Plaintiff Through:
Mr. Urfee Roomi, Ms. Janaki Arun and Mr. Jaskaran Singh, Advs.
versus OM BALAJEE AUTOMOBILE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Defendant Through:
Mr. Sanchit Bhushan, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
O R D E R
% 27.05.2024 1.
Pursuant to previous order dated 09th May, 2024, Court Notice was issued to counsel for defendant. Mr. Imran Khan, Advocate, appears through VC and seeks discharge from the matter, alongwith Mr. Shiv Charan Garg and Mr. Yash Mittal.
2.
Accordingly, the said counsels are discharged from the present matter. 3.
Mr. Sanchit Bhushan, Advocate, enters appearance on behalf of the defendant, and states on instructions that their client is not using the mark 'DMW' or 'DMW' stylized mark anymore and have no objection if a decree is passed in this regard. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
4.
A judgment dated 23rd March, 2020 had been passed by this Court in the following terms:
"27. The plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case. Balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. An ad interim injunction is passed restraining the defendants, its officers, agents etc. from manufacturing, exporting, importing or offering for sale, advertising or in any manner dealing with goods not limited to E-Rickshaws bearing the mark DMW or any other mark which are identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's BMW marks."
5.
The facts and circumstances which are relevant to the matter had been traversed in the said judgment and are not being repeated here. 6.
Defendant is willing to suffer a decree, in the event plaintiff is not seeking any costs or damages.
7.
Mr. Urfee Roomi, Counsel for the plaintiff, states on instructions that a decree may be passed in terms of para 70 (a) - (e), which is reproduced hereunder:
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
8.
Accordingly, decree-sheet be drawn up in the above terms. 9.
The defendant will withdraw the trademark applications mentioned in para 70 (e) above in the next eight weeks, and confirmation by communication in that regard will be made to counsel for plaintiff, within two weeks thereafter.
10.
Mr. Roomi, Counsel for the plaintiff, states that there is another application No. 400222, which has been filed by the defendant in Class 12. In case the application is still valid, counsel for the defendant states that they shall take steps within the next eight weeks to file for withdrawal of the said mark as well, and record it as part of their compliance. 11.
Suit is disposed of in these terms. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
12.
Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J MAY 27, 2024/MK/rj The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.