By consent order, these appeals concerning trade mark issues were disposed of; the suit was decreed in specified terms while non-possession was accepted as an undertaking.
Suit decreed on prayer clauses (a) and (b); undertaking of non-possession accepted for clause (c); suit disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 s-2997-08
I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
jmi
SUIT NO. 2997 OF 2008.
Syntex Pharm AG. ..Plaintiff. vs. Cipla Limited & Anr. ..Defendants.
Mr. Venkatesh Dhond, a/w. Mr. Rajiv Singh, i/b. Grawford Bayley & Co., for Plaintiff.
Mr. Rahul Chitnis, a/w. Ms. Kadambari Surve, i/b. M & M Legal Ventures, for Defendant No.1.
CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 24TH JANUARY 2011.
P.C.
The following order is passed by consent of the parties : (i) The Suit is decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a)
and (b).
(ii) As regards prayer clause (c), the learned Advocate appearing for the Defendant No.1 on instructions states that the Defendant No.1 is not in possession of any of the articles, dies, cartons, boxes, wrappers, labels, papers and things bearing the impugned trade mark. The statement is accepted as an undertaking of the Defendants.
(iii) The Plaintiff is not pressing for prayer clause (d) of
the Suit.
(iv) The Suit is accordingly, disposed of. Refund of Court fees as per Rules.
[ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]
S.J. Kathawalla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
