Bihu Sharma and Ms. Archita Nigam, Advocates with Mr. Saurabh Nayyar, in person v. BRAUN AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT

RFA-IPD 3/2022 Page 1 of 4 $~52 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA-IPD 3/2022, CM 274/2025 & CM APPL. 25635/2019 DOCBEL INDUSTRIES & ANR. .....Decree Holders Through: Ms. Bihu Sharma and Ms. Archita Nigam, Advocates with Mr. Saurabh Nayyar, in person versus BRAUN AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT .....Judgement Debtor Through: Mr. Prashant Gupta, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr. Om Ram and Mr. Arnav Mittal, Advs. CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA O R D E R % 12.12.2025 CM 274/2025 (for recording of compromise arrived at between the parties) 1. This is a joint application filed by the Appellants and the Respondent under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Impleadment of Mr. Saurabh Nayyar in substitution as Appellant No.2 2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits at the outset that the application has been signed by Mr. Saurabh Nayyar, the grandson of Appellant No. 2 (since deceased). 2.1 She submits that the trademark registration no. 405367 in Class 09 for the mark BRAUN, which stood in the name of Appellant No. 2, has been assigned in favour of Mr. Saurabh Nayyar. 2.2 She states that the assignment has been recorded in the records of the trademark registry, and as per the current updated status, Mr. Saurabh Nayyar’s name is reflected in the register. 2.3 She states that Appellant No. 1 is a sole proprietorship concern, and it This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/12/2025 at 13:05:06 RFA-IPD 3/2022 Page 2 of 4 is Mr. Saurabh Nayyar who is the proprietor of the said proprietorship. 2.4 She states that, in fact, Appellant No. 2 passed away in the year 2010, and the entire business of Appellant No. 1 was inherited by Mr. Saurabh Nayyar. 2.5 She clarifies that Appellant No. 2 had gifted trademark registration no. 405367 and business of Appellant No. 1 to Mr. Saurabh Nayyar during his lifetime and, therefore, there is no other party who has a claim on this mark or the business. 2.6 Learned counsel for the Respondent states that Respondent has satisfied itself with respect to the authority of Mr. Saurabh Nayyar to execute this agreement and enter into this settlement as well as his rights in the trademark registration no. 405367. 2.7 Learned counsel for the parties state that on their oral request, Mr. Saurabh Nayyar may be substituted in place of Appellant No. 2 and recorded as the proprietor of Appellant No. 1. 3. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the oral prayer is accepted and Mr. Saurabh Nayyar is substituted in place of Appellant No. 2, and he will become Appellant No. 2. The memo of parties will also record Mr. Saurabh Nayyar as the proprietor of Appellant No. 1. 4. Amended memo of parties be filed within one [1] week. 5. Appellant No. 2/Mr. Saurabh Nayyar is directed to file an affidavit confirming the contents of this order, which records his submission within one [1] week. Settlement 6. Learned counsel for Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 states that this application has been signed by Mr. Saurabh Nayyar for and on behalf of Appellant No. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/12/2025 at 13:05:06 RFA-IPD 3/2022 Page 3 of 4 1 and Appellant No. 2. 6.1 It is stated that Appellant No. 2 has already executed an assignment deed for trademark registration no. 405367 in favour of the Respondent on 17.09.2025, which is annexed as document no. 1 to this application. 6.2 It is stated that all original and other documents available in their custody pertaining to the trademark registration no. 405367 will be handed over to the Respondent within a period of one [1] week from today. 7. Learned counsel for the Respondent confirms that the original assignment deed dated 17.09.2025 is in the custody of the Respondent. 7.1 He states that in terms of Class 8 of this agreement, a demand draft of a sum of Rs. 8.5 lakhs have been handed over to the Appellant No. 2 during the course of the hearing. 8. Learned counsel for the parties state that the terms and conditions agreed between the parties are set out in this application and the appeal be disposed of in terms thereof. 9. This Court has heard the submissions and perused the Settlement Agreement dated 17.09.2025. The compromise contained in the aforesaid settlement agreement dated 17.09.2025 is lawful. This Court finds no impediment in accepting the said settlement. The undertakings of the parties recorded in the settlement are accepted and parties are bound down to the same. 10. Learned counsel for the Respondent states that he will file an appropriate application before the trademarks registry for recording the assignment of the TM registration no. 405367 from Appellant No. 2 in its favour within four [4] weeks. The Registrar is directed to process the said application, if in order, in accordance with the law as expeditiously as This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/12/2025 at 13:05:06 RFA-IPD 3/2022 Page 4 of 4 possible, preferably within eight [8] weeks. 11. Mr. Om Ram, learned counsel representing the Registrar Trademarks, who is present in Court, is requested to appear in this matter, and he is directed to communicate this order to the Registrar for taking appropriate directions on the application filed by the Respondent for registration of the assignment. 12. The present appeal stands disposed of in terms of the said settlement. Pending applications stand disposed of. 13. All future dates stand cancelled. MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J DECEMBER 12, 2025/msh/aa

RFA-IPD 3/2022 Page 1 of 4 $~52 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA-IPD 3/2022, CM 274/2025 & CM APPL. 25635/2019 DOCBEL INDUSTRIES & ANR. .....Decree Holders Through: Ms. Bihu Sharma and Ms. Archita Nigam, Advocates with Mr. Saurabh Nayyar, in person versus BRAUN AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT .....Judgement Debtor Through: Mr. Prashant Gupta, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr. Om Ram and Mr. Arnav Mittal, Advs. CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA O R D E R % 12.12.2025 CM 274/2025 (for recording of compromise arrived at between the parties) 1. This is a joint application filed by the Appellants and the Respondent under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Impleadment of Mr. Saurabh Nayyar in substitution as Appellant No.2 2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits at the outset that the application has been signed by Mr. Saurabh Nayyar, the grandson of Appellant No. 2 (since deceased). 2.1 She submits that the trademark registration no. 405367 in Class 09 for the mark BRAUN, which stood in the name of Appellant No. 2, has been assigned in favour of Mr. Saurabh Nayyar. 2.2 She states that the assignment has been recorded in the records of the trademark registry, and as per the current updated status, Mr. Saurabh Nayyar’s name is reflected in the register. 2.3 She states that Appellant No. 1 is a sole proprietorship concern, and it This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/12/2025 at 13:05:06 RFA-IPD 3/2022 Page 2 of 4 is Mr. Saurabh Nayyar who is the proprietor of the said proprietorship. 2.4 She states that, in fact, Appellant No. 2 passed away in the year 2010, and the entire business of Appellant No. 1 was inherited by Mr. Saurabh Nayyar. 2.5 She clarifies that Appellant No. 2 had gifted trademark registration no. 405367 and business of Appellant No. 1 to Mr. Saurabh Nayyar during his lifetime and, therefore, there is no other party who has a claim on this mark or the business. 2.6 Learned counsel for the Respondent states that Respondent has satisfied itself with respect to the authority of Mr. Saurabh Nayyar to execute this agreement and enter into this settlement as well as his rights in the trademark registration no. 405367. 2.7 Learned counsel for the parties state that on their oral request, Mr. Saurabh Nayyar may be substituted in place of Appellant No. 2 and recorded as the proprietor of Appellant No. 1. 3. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the oral prayer is accepted and Mr. Saurabh Nayyar is substituted in place of Appellant No. 2, and he will become Appellant No. 2. The memo of parties will also record Mr. Saurabh Nayyar as the proprietor of Appellant No. 1. 4. Amended memo of parties be filed within one [1] week. 5. Appellant No. 2/Mr. Saurabh Nayyar is directed to file an affidavit confirming the contents of this order, which records his submission within one [1] week. Settlement 6. Learned counsel for Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 states that this application has been signed by Mr. Saurabh Nayyar for and on behalf of Appellant No. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/12/2025 at 13:05:06 RFA-IPD 3/2022 Page 3 of 4 1 and Appellant No. 2. 6.1 It is stated that Appellant No. 2 has already executed an assignment deed for trademark registration no. 405367 in favour of the Respondent on 17.09.2025, which is annexed as document no. 1 to this application. 6.2 It is stated that all original and other documents available in their custody pertaining to the trademark registration no. 405367 will be handed over to the Respondent within a period of one [1] week from today. 7. Learned counsel for the Respondent confirms that the original assignment deed dated 17.09.2025 is in the custody of the Respondent. 7.1 He states that in terms of Class 8 of this agreement, a demand draft of a sum of Rs. 8.5 lakhs have been handed over to the Appellant No. 2 during the course of the hearing. 8. Learned counsel for the parties state that the terms and conditions agreed between the parties are set out in this application and the appeal be disposed of in terms thereof. 9. This Court has heard the submissions and perused the Settlement Agreement dated 17.09.2025. The compromise contained in the aforesaid settlement agreement dated 17.09.2025 is lawful. This Court finds no impediment in accepting the said settlement. The undertakings of the parties recorded in the settlement are accepted and parties are bound down to the same. 10. Learned counsel for the Respondent states that he will file an appropriate application before the trademarks registry for recording the assignment of the TM registration no. 405367 from Appellant No. 2 in its favour within four [4] weeks. The Registrar is directed to process the said application, if in order, in accordance with the law as expeditiously as This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/12/2025 at 13:05:06 RFA-IPD 3/2022 Page 4 of 4 possible, preferably within eight [8] weeks. 11. Mr. Om Ram, learned counsel representing the Registrar Trademarks, who is present in Court, is requested to appear in this matter, and he is directed to communicate this order to the Registrar for taking appropriate directions on the application filed by the Respondent for registration of the assignment. 12. The present appeal stands disposed of in terms of the said settlement. Pending applications stand disposed of. 13. All future dates stand cancelled. MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J DECEMBER 12, 2025/msh/aa