Parties are bound by undertakings permitting existing trademark stock’s sale until 31 March 2027, subject to cessation thereafter.

The appellant challenged the order dated 5 June 2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in proceedings instituted by the respondents under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking removal/cancellation from the Trade Marks Register of the word mark “PONTA” (Registration No. 4134589) and a device mark (Registration No. 4885149), both in Class 9 and registered in the appellant’s name.

During the appellate proceedings, the parties arrived at mutually agreed terms and filed affidavits pursuant to the Court’s directions.

The appellant undertook that no further manufacture would be undertaken, that the existing stock—approximately 53,790 pieces—would be sold or exhausted by 31 March 2027, and that unsold finished goods would thereafter be destroyed.

The respondents undertook not to initiate or pursue fresh proceedings in relation to the marks, subject to the appellant’s strict compliance with those undertakings, while reserving their legal remedies in case of breach.

Whether the appeals could be disposed of in terms of the parties’ respective affidavits and mutual undertakings concerning the cessation, sale and destruction of goods bearing the disputed marks.

Whether the parties’ undertakings should be accepted, made part of the record, and be treated as binding obligations.

Whether the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to the Registrar of Trade Marks required implementation following disposal of the appeals.

The proceedings arose under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which provide statutory mechanisms for removal or cancellation of registered trademarks.

The Court applied the procedural principle that parties may resolve pending appellate proceedings through binding undertakings or mutually agreed terms, which the Court may accept and incorporate into its order.

It further applied the principle that such undertakings remain enforceable subject to their terms, and that a party may retain its legal remedies in the event of breach.

The Court recorded that both sides had filed affidavits setting out reciprocal obligations.

The appellant’s affidavit established a time-bound arrangement: cessation of manufacture, exhaustion of existing stock by 31 March 2027, discontinuance of promotion and advertising after that date, removal of online material within the appellant’s control, and destruction of unsold finished goods.

In return, the respondents agreed not to institute or pursue proceedings concerning the appellant’s use of the marks, conditional upon strict compliance; however, they expressly preserved their rights in the event of breach.

Since counsel for both parties requested disposal of the appeals on these terms, the Court accepted the affidavits as binding undertakings rather than proceeding to determine the substantive validity or registrability of the marks.

The Court accepted the parties’ undertakings, took them on record, and bound the parties to comply with them.

The Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to comply with the relevant direction in paragraph 34 of the learned Single Judge’s order dated 5 June 2026 within four weeks.

The pending applications were also disposed of.