- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi High Court Approves Settlement Between Dubai's Jumeirah And NOIDA Developer Over 'Burj' Trademark Dispute
Delhi High Court Approves Settlement Between Dubai's Jumeirah And NOIDA Developer Over 'Burj' Trademark Dispute
The Delhi High Court has approved a settlement agreement between Dubai's Jumeirah Beach Resort LLC, the international hotel chain known for its flagship hotel Burj Al Arab, and real estate developer Designarch, concerning the use of the 'Burj' trademark.
Previously, a judge had restrained Designarch from using the marks 'BURJBANGALORE', 'BURJMUMBAI', 'BURJDELHI', 'BURJGURUGRAM', and 'BURJGURGAON' during the duration of the case. However, the court allowed Designarch to continue using 'BURJNOIDA' for a residential project that had been under construction for over ten years.
Jumeirah and Designarch filed cross-appeals against this ruling, but during the appellate process, the two parties reached an amicable settlement.
As part of the settlement, Jumeirah recognized Designarch as the rightful owner of the 'BURJNOIDA' trademark and logo, while Designarch acknowledged Jumeirah's ownership of the 'BURJ AL ARAB' trademark and logo. Designarch also agreed not to imply any connection between its 'BURJNOIDA' project and Jumeirah. Furthermore, Designarch undertook not to design, construct, or develop any building identical to Burj Al Arab and agreed to withdraw any pending trademark applications.
Additionally, Designarch committed to refraining from applying for or using any 'BURJ' or 'BURJ'-related trademarks, except for 'BURJNOIDA', in the future. Both parties also agreed to withdraw the cancellation petitions filed against each other’s trademarks.
The Division Bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Amit Bansal stated, "The settlement terms agreed by the parties are final and irrevocable. The settlement shall bind the parties, their successors, representatives, and assigns." With this resolution, the court dismissed the appeals.