Matter: Ajanta LLP v. Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha d/b/a Casio Computer Co. Ltd.
Order date: 04 February 2022
Summary:
This case relates to scientific calculators manufactured by the parties. Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha (“Casio”) alleged that Ajanta LLP (“Ajanta”) had fraudulently imitated the registered design of its scientific calculator and was manufacturing and selling its ORPAT scientific calculator which bears Casio’s registered design. Casio filed a suit against Ajanta urging that Ajanta be restrained by a permanent injunction from manufacturing, importing, marketing, advertising, promoting, offering for sale, selling, exporting and/ or using its ORPAT scientific calculators.
Before the Delhi HC, Casio submitted that Ajanta had copied each and every original and novel element of the registered designs of Casio’s calculator model ‘CASIO FX-991ES PLUS’, and Ajanta is now selling an identical calculator model ‘ORPAT FX-991ES PLUS’ at a lower price. Delhi HC passed an interim order of stay, however, later, a settlement was arrived at between the parties and the HC decreed the suit in terms of the settlement agreement. Subsequently, an application was filed by Casio for rectification of the judgment, contending that the settlement agreement pertains only to trademark ‘FX-991ES PLUS’/ ‘FX-991’ and there was an inadvertent typographical error of the trademark in the settlement agreement as ‘FX-991ES PLUS/ FX/ 991’. The HC however, dismissed the application, and an appeal was filed before the SC.
After considering the submissions, SC noted that the misunderstanding as projected between the parties relates to use of “FX” or “991” as separate marks in the settlement agreement. A final draft of the settlement agreement from Ajanta’s side was communicated to the advocate for Casio’s in which it was categorically stated that Ajanta undertakes not to adopt/ manufacture/ sell/ offer/ advertise/ promote/ use in any manner, any goods incorporating the design of Casio of ‘FX-991ES PLUS’ and/ or the trade mark ‘FX-991ES PLUS’/ ‘FX’/ ‘991’ and/ or its packaging or any other identically, deceptively and/ or confusingly similar packaging to that of Casio’s packaging. Finally, the settlement agreement was executed between the parties. The SC held that a consent decree cannot be modified/ altered unless the mistake is obvious, or consent is vitiated by fraud or misrepresentation. In the present case, there were no allegations of either of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of Ajanta or Casio. The SC did not agree with Casio that there was a mistake committed while entering into a settlement agreement due to misunderstanding and upheld the order of the HC.
