Settlement Agreement in Infringement Suit Becomes Decree as Parties Consent to Mediation Terms

The Appellant, Merlin Rubber, filed an appeal against a judgment passed by a learned Single Judge on March 25, 2025, which had granted a decree in favor of the Respondent, Bridgestone Corporation.

During the pendency of the appeal, the parties entered into mediation to resolve disputes regarding the infringement of the Respondent's registered trademarks (specifically "BRIMESTONE" and the "B" mark) and allegations of passing off.

A settlement agreement was executed on January 19, 2026, outlining the terms for permanent injunction, payment of damages, and destruction of infringing goods.

Whether the settlement agreement entered into between the parties via mediation is enforceable and sufficient to dispose of the appeal and the underlying suit?

Whether the Appellant is entitled to a refund of court fees paid in excess?

The court applied the principles governing the compromise of suits and disposal of appeals based on settlement agreements recorded under the aegis of mediation.

It relied on the law governing permanent injunctions and trademark infringement as per the prayers in the original plaint.

Additionally, the court considered the statutory provisions and court rules regarding the refund of court fees in instances where matters are settled or where excess fees have been inadvertently paid.

The Court perused the specific terms of the settlement agreement dated January 19, 2026, and found them to be enforceable and in order.

Under the agreement, the Appellant undertook to abide by a permanent injunction restraining them from using the deceptively similar marks "BRIMESTONE" or the "B" mark.

Furthermore, the parties agreed to a revised damages amount of ₹20,00,000, which the Respondent accepted as a full and final settlement in lieu of the higher damages previously granted by the Single Judge.

The Court noted the Appellant's commitment to destroy all infringing goods seized during the Local Commissioner’s visit.

Since both parties expressed their intention to abide by these terms, the Court determined that no further tripartite dispute survived for adjudication.

The Registry was directed to draw up a decree sheet forthwith.

Regarding the court fees, the Court directed the matter to be listed before the Joint Registrar on March 20, 2026, to ascertain if an excess amount of ₹1,13,596 was paid.

If confirmed, the Appellant is entitled to a refund.