Consent decree bars deceptively similar packaging while preserving use of “PASTA” and “KATORI” per se.

Respondent No. 1 instituted CS (COMM) No. 561/2026 alleging infringement of its trademarks, copyrights, and trade dresses, and obtained an ex parte ad interim injunction against the Appellant from using marks, labels, colour combinations, packaging, or trade dresses identical or deceptively similar to those of Respondent No. 1.

The Appellant challenged the injunction in the present appeal. During the appeal, the Appellant expressed willingness to adopt new packaging while retaining the use of the words “PASTA” and “KATORI”.

The parties subsequently arrived at an amicable settlement without prejudice to their respective rights and contentions.

The settlement included acknowledgment of Respondent No. 1’s rights in specified marks and packaging, undertakings by the Appellant not to use deceptively similar marks or trade dresses, payment of ₹4,00,000 towards costs, and destruction or recycling of seized packaging after donation of the goods, with video recording and Respondent No. 1’s representatives present.

Whether the settlement terms agreed between the Appellant and Respondent No. 1 could be recorded and made binding by a decree of the Court.

Whether, in view of the settlement, any further relief remained to be adjudicated in the appeal or in the underlying commercial suit insofar as it concerned the Appellant and Respondent No. 1.

The Court applied the procedural principle that a settlement voluntarily entered into by parties and duly assented to by their counsel may be recorded and incorporated into a binding decree, with the parties’ undertakings enforceable according to their terms.

The Court also applied the principle that, once the entire dispute between the relevant parties is resolved by settlement, the proceedings may be disposed of in terms of that settlement.

The underlying claims concerned trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off, but the Court did not adjudicate those claims on merits or refer to any specific statutory provision or precedent.

The Court noted that the parties had reached an amicable settlement and placed the agreed terms on record.

Those terms expressly defined the Appellant’s continuing obligations: it acknowledged Respondent No. 1’s rights in the specified trademarks and packaging, agreed not to use deceptively similar marks or trade dresses in relation to snacks, namkeen, or allied goods and services, confirmed that no relevant registration applications were pending, and agreed to pay ₹4,00,000 towards full and final settlement of the claims against it.

In return, Respondent No. 1 undertook not to object to the Appellant’s use of specified labels and the words “PASTA” and “KATORI” per se.

Since the parties and their counsel assented to the settlement, the Court treated the undertakings as binding on the parties and specified successors connected with the Appellant’s business, and found that no further relief remained for adjudication between the Appellant and Respondent No. 1.

The Appellant was bound by the non-use undertakings, payment obligation, and disposal of seized goods and packaging; Respondent No. 1 was bound by its undertaking not to object to the Appellant’s use of the agreed labels and the marks “PASTA” and “KATORI” per se.

A decree sheet was directed to be drawn up, and the appeal together with all pending applications was disposed of.