Trademark disputes often hinge on the recognition and protection of proprietary rights. In the case at hand, the dispute revolves around the usage of trademarks 'POWER' and 'TOWER' in relation to specific goods falling under different classes. The defendant initially acknowledged the proprietary rights of the plaintiff in the trademark 'TOWER' for goods in class 30 and undertook to restrict its usage to specific goods falling under classes 1 and 29. However, subsequent violations led to legal action, resulting in the granting of an injunction by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. This article aims to analyze the legal implications of undertakings in trademark disputes and the binding nature thereof.

Enforceability of Undertakings:
An undertaking, once given, carries significant legal weight, especially in the context of trademark disputes. It represents a formal commitment by the party giving it and is relied upon by the other party. In this case, the defendant's undertaking dated 20.03.2013 explicitly recognized the proprietary rights of the plaintiff in the trademark 'TOWER' for goods in class 30 and agreed to restrict its usage to specific goods in classes 1 and 29.

Reliance and Detrimental Reliance:
The enforceability of undertakings is often tied to the principle of detrimental reliance. When one party relies on the undertaking to its detriment, the party giving the undertaking cannot subsequently resile from it. The plaintiff, in this case, withdrew its opposition against Application No. 1655205 based on the defendant's undertaking. This withdrawal constituted detrimental reliance on the part of the plaintiff, as it acted to its disadvantage based on the assurance given by the defendant.

Estoppel and Equitable Considerations:
The principle of estoppel also comes into play in situations where one party's actions induce another party to act in a certain way. The defendant, having induced the plaintiff to withdraw its opposition and act to its detriment based on the undertaking, cannot now oppose the enforcement of the undertaking. This principle is essential in maintaining fairness and equity in contractual and legal relationships.

Binding Nature of Undertakings:
Undertakings are binding contractual obligations, and parties are expected to adhere to them in good faith. In this case, the defendant's attempt to use the trademark 'TOWER' in relation to goods outside the agreed classes constitutes a breach of the undertaking. The granting of an injunction by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi underscores the binding nature of undertakings in trademark disputes.

Conclusion:
The case highlights the importance of honoring undertakings in trademark disputes and the legal consequences of failing to do so. Undertakings represent formal commitments that parties rely upon, and breaching them can lead to legal action and injunctions. The principles of detrimental reliance, estoppel, and equity play significant roles in determining the enforceability of undertakings.

Case Title: A B Mauri India Private Limited Vs Vicky Aggarwal and Ors
Order Date: 04.03.2024
Case No. CS(COMM) 810/2022
Neutral Citation:2024:DHC:1923
Name of Court: Delhi High Court
Name of Hon'ble Judge : C Harishankar H.J.

Disclaimer:
This article is meant for informational purposes only and should not be construed as substitute for legal advice as Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation perceived and expressed herein are are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue of law involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539