Facts
Mars Incorporated, the plaintiff and Cadbury India Ltd, which is now part of the Mondelez Group, the defendants were engaged in a long legal battle spanning over 25 years on the dispute of using the mark “CELEBRATIONS” in relation to the confectionary products that they manufactured. These companies had filed several oppositions against the mark before the Indian Trade marks Registry, which also involved several other oppositions and rectifications concerning the mark “ CELEBRATIONS” in classes 30 and 35. It is pertinent to note that the litigation battle has been going on for about 25 years with extensive pleadings, affidavits and hearings. Along with Application, the Defendants seek substitution of Defendant No. 2 and recording of the change of name of Defendant No. 3. The request for recording the change of name of defendant No. 3 is already allowed by order dated 25th September 2025 which was passed by the Joint registrar. There was again an application filed by Defendant No.2 for which the counsel for plaintiff submits that there is no objection on their part as such substitution is in fact necessary for the effective resolution of the dispute and for which a separate application has already been filed. The court allowed the application and substituted Defendant No. 2 to Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Limited. Now, there is a joint application filed by the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking decree in terms of the mutual settlement between them. Likewise, in the application it is stated that the Plaintiff agrees to the disposal of all oppositions and the present lawsuit that is filed by them against the defendant for the mark “ CELEBRATIONS” and also the Defendant agrees to withdraw all opposition proceedings, rectification proceedings against the same. Finally the parties agree that all the requests of withdrawal shall be filed within 10 days from the date of passing the order of disposing the present suit by the Hon’ble High Court and that the settlement agreement constitutes full and final settlement of the suits. The parties also agreed that they have no further claims or demands whatsoever against each other and all the differences are amicably settled. The Parties further agreed that they shall abide by the terms and conditions set out in the Settlement Agreement and shall not dispute the same hereinafter in future either themselves, or through any third parties.
Issues
Whether the parties could amicably settle all pending disputes concerning the trademark “CELEBRATIONS”.
Whether the High Court could decree the suit under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC based on a settlement agreement mutually accepted by both sides.
Legal Provisions
1.Order XXIII Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: This provision governs compromise of suits and allows a court to record a lawful settlement between parties and pass a decree in accordance with the compromise.
- Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: This section confers inherent powers on the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process.
- Section 9 of Trade Marks act 1999 : Absolute grounds for refusal of registration
- Section 11 – Relative grounds for refusal (likelihood of confusion or similarity with earlier marks).
5.Sections 21–57 – Governing procedures for opposition and rectification of trademarks before the Trade Marks Registry.
Arguments
Mars Incorporated ( Plaintiff)
Since the case concerns the very act of settling the dispute amicably,the plaintiff acknowledged that Defendant No. 2 could be substituted by Mondelez UK Holdings Services Limited and raised no objection to recording the change of name of Defendant No. 3, as such substitution was essential for effective dispute resolution. Counsel for Mars explicitly consented to this procedural change in court. The plaintiff, through its authorized representative, affirmed that the Settlement Agreement constituted a full and final settlement of the current suit and of all related proceedings. The company had no further demands or claims against Cadbury or its affiliates. It would remain bound by the compromise terms and not dispute them in the future, directly or indirectly
As their main submission, Mars voluntarily proposed, along with Cadbury, to donate confectionery products worth ₹5 lakh to government schoolchildren in Delhi. The plaintiff articulated that this act would represent closure, goodwill, and community spirit, bringing a human dimension to a commercial conflict.
Cadbury (India) Ltd & Ors ( Defendants)
Due to the sense of amicability present in the suit, the defendant’s main stand point was that they are willing to withdraw all proceedings against the plaintiff.
Analysis
The joint application by the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was considered appropriate to dispose of the suit by way of recorded compromise. Hence, the court analysed the same according to the settlement agreement.
Judgment
The court decreed the suit in terms of the settlement, disposed of all pending applications, and bound the parties to the terms of the agreement. The settlement agreement was that the parties voluntarily undertake a gesture of distributing confectionery assortments worth ₹5 lakh each to schoolchildren in government and government-aided schools in Delhi before Diwali, supervised by Directorate of Education (GNCTD) and Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA).
Conclusion
Both parties are bound by their commitments, and the judgment reflects a noteworthy example of dispute resolution marked by cooperation, public interest, and corporate responsibility.
Click here to read more:Mars Incorporated Vs Cadbury (India) Ltd & Ors
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY S. KAVIYA SRI
