XX and Anr vs Yy

XX and Anr vs YY

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Apr 30, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1270382

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1270382
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Hon'Ble Ms. Justice Jyoti Singh
Decided On: Apr 30, 2026
Case Number: CS(COMM)/881/2025
Subject: Intellectual Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Intellectual Property

Key legal issue: Intellectual Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

XX and Anr

Advocate Mr. Gurvinder Singh

Respondent

Advocate Mr. Ayush Dey

Excerpt

.....against the defendant and all others acting on behalf of the defendant from using in any manner the impugned mark(s) “hardvin” and and/or any other mark or marks, identical to or deceptively similar to or containing any of the plaintiffs’trademarks hardwyn, , , and/or any other hardwyn trademark(s) either as a brand name, trademark, trading style, corporate name, domain name, metatag, hashtag, web-address or otherwise, on its website, social media webpages, online trade directories or otherwise for manufacturing, producing, offering for sale, selling, displaying, advertising, marketing, stocking, whether directly or indirectly in relation to their business/products/services, whether on the internet orcs(comm) 881/2025 page 1 of 2 otherwise, in respect of architectural hardware items and/or any other similar/related/allied/cognate goods and/or in any manner whatsoever amounting to infringement thereof, amongst other reliefs.2. during the pendency of the suit, parties were referred for mediationbefore the delhi high court mediation and conciliation centre, where they have amicably settled their inter se disputes and executed a settlement agreement dated 15.01.2026, incorporating the terms of settlement.3. court has perused the terms of settlement and finds the same to be lawful. accordingly, the suit is decreed in terms of the settlement between the parties, which shall form a part of the decree and bind the parties thereto.4. registry is directed to draw up the decree sheet.5. suit along with the pending application stands disposed of.6. plaintiffs are held entitled to refund of entire court fees in accordance with court fees act, 1870. jyoti singh, j april 30, 2026/ya cs(comm) 881/2025 page 2 of 2

Full Judgment

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 881/2025 and I.A. 20708/2025 HARDWYN INDIA LIMITED AND ANR .....Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Gurvinder Singh, Advocate.
versus
RAJENNDRA ENGITECH LLP .....Defendant Through: Mr. Ayush Dey, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

ORDER

% 30.04.2026

1. This suit is instituted on behalf of the Plaintiffs seeking decree of permanent/perpetual injunction against the Defendant and all others acting on behalf of the Defendant from using in any manner the impugned mark(s) “HARDVIN” and and/or any other mark or marks, identical to or deceptively similar to or containing any of the Plaintiffs’

trademarks HARDWYN, , , and/or any other HARDWYN trademark(s) either as a brand name, trademark, trading style, corporate name, domain name, metatag, hashtag, web-address or otherwise, on its website, social media webpages, online trade directories or otherwise for manufacturing, producing, offering for sale, selling, displaying, advertising, marketing, stocking, whether directly or indirectly in relation to their business/products/services, whether on the Internet or

CS(COMM) 881/2025 Page 1 of 2 otherwise, in respect of architectural hardware items and/or any other similar/related/allied/cognate goods and/or in any manner whatsoever amounting to infringement thereof, amongst other reliefs.

2. During the pendency of the suit, parties were referred for mediation

before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, where they have amicably settled their inter se disputes and executed a Settlement Agreement dated 15.01.2026, incorporating the terms of settlement.

3. Court has perused the terms of settlement and finds the same to be lawful. Accordingly, the suit is decreed in terms of the settlement between the parties, which shall form a part of the decree and bind the parties thereto.

4. Registry is directed to draw up the decree sheet.

5. Suit along with the pending application stands disposed of.

6. Plaintiffs are held entitled to refund of entire court fees in accordance with Court Fees Act, 1870. JYOTI SINGH, J APRIL 30, 2026/YA CS(COMM) 881/2025 Page 2 of 2

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2026 Same Parties XX and Anr vs YY Same Subject Intellectual Property Same Judge Hon'Ble Ms. Justice Jyoti Singh