AMIT TALWAR Vs. VIVEK TALWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.

(2.) As per the plaintiffs, plaintiff no.1 along with his father Sh. Charanjit Talwar and Ram Gopal Khanna started business for manufacturing and trading in sanitary goods and fittings selling and built-up a partnership firm namely "Parkash Brassware Industries" and they started using a unique word PARKO for label/packaging of their goods. After the demise of parents of Plaintiff no.2 in 1997 , he became the sole proprietor of the Prakash Brassware Industries and has individually applied for registration of the trademark PARKO including trademarks PARKO and PARKOVIC. From 1986 onwards, he is the only owner of the copyright in the original artistic work of logos and PARKO. It is further stated that the plaintiff No.3 has also been authorised by plaintiff No.2 to use the trademark PARKO. On 02.04.2010 plaintiff No.2 entered into a Family Settlement with his sons and wife in which it was mutually decided that defendant No.l will resign from the Directorship of plaintiff No.3. Plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.l entered into an Agreement on 03.07.2010 wherein plaintiff No.2 is the first and prior adopter of the trademark PARKO for bathroom fitting and cognate and allied goods. The proprietorship of the plaintiff No.2 on the trademark PARKO was duly acknowledged and it was also agreed that defendant No.l will not use the trademark PARKO but he will be allowed to use the word PARKO in conjunction with VIC i.e. PARKVIC or any other word. However, despite signing the agreement dated 03.07.2010, defendants applied for identical trade mark in the year 2010 and further disputes arose between the parties.

(3.) Vide order dated 12.07.2019, matter was referred to Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre for exploring possibility of settlement, however, mediation failed.