Settlement agreement restricting specific stitching designs is enforceable against deceptively similar variations and subsequent design registrations.

The Plaintiff, owner of the well-known "Arcuate Stitching Design Mark" registered in India since 1979, filed for an interim injunction against the Defendant for using allegedly deceptively similar stitching designs on its KILLER, INTEGRITI, and LAWMAN Pg3 brand jeans.

The parties had previously entered into a Settlement Agreement on 27.05.2019, which recognized the Plaintiff’s proprietary rights and categorized various stitching designs into "permitted" (Annexure D and E) and "prohibited" (Annexure F and G) categories.

The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant’s current designs for KILLER and INTEGRITI violated the Agreement by mirroring prohibited designs.

1. Whether the Defendant’s impugned KILLER and INTEGRITI stitching designs constitute a breach of the Settlement Agreement dated 27.05.2019 and infringe upon the Plaintiff’s well-known Arcuate mark.

2. Whether the Defendant should be restrained from using the LAWMAN Pg3 stitching design, which was not a subject matter of the prior Settlement Agreement.

The court applied Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for interim injunctions.

Section 2(1)(zg) and Section 11(6) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, regarding well-known marks.

The court also upheld the principle of contractual estoppel, holding the Defendant to its admissions and warranties regarding trademark similarity and prohibited designs contained in the Settlement Agreement.

Regarding the KILLER brand, the court found the designs featured pointed arcs meeting at the center of the pocket, a characteristic specifically prohibited in Annexure G of the Agreement, whereas permitted designs required distinct left or right indents.

For the INTEGRITI brand, the court rejected the Defendant’s claim that a change in stitch count (from four to two) distinguished it from the prohibited Annexure F designs, ruling that such "microscopic differences" fail to prevent consumer confusion and constitute a breach of the Agreement’s intent.

Regarding LAWMAN Pg3, the court noted the design was not part of the 2019 Agreement, had been registered since 2013, and contained a distinct "zig-zag" element imitating the brand’s "W," leading the court to find no prima facie deceptive similarity at this stage.

The court denied the injunction for the LAWMAN Pg3 design, leaving the issue for trial.

The Defendant was ordered to file verified books of accounts and affidavits detailing current stock, with retailers allowed a four-month window to clear existing physical inventory.