The court granted injunctions restraining defendants from using marks similar to plaintiff's "Tiger" trademark in medicinal preparations. Found deceptive similarity and granted nominal damages.
Injunctions restraining use of similar marks granted. Nominal damages of Rs. 1,00,000 awarded. Suit decreed.
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.
s2512-01
1
vai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SUIT NO.2512 OF 2001
Haw Par Brothers International Ltd. & Ors. ....Plaintiffs V/s.
Dubey Pharmacy & Ors. ....Defendants
Mr.Manish Saurastri with Ms.Mamta Chandan and Mr.Rahul Dhote i/b Shantilal & Co. for the Plaintiffs.
None for the Defendants.
CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 13TH FEBRUARY, 2012.
P.C. :-
the device of a leaping tiger in relation to any medicinal preparation so as to pass off their goods as and for those of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have also sought an injunction restraining the defendant from using in relation to any medicinal preparation, the impugned label and/or carton and/or container with or without the said mark and/or
2
s2512-01
device etc. Lastly, the plaintiffs have sought nominal damages in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-.
3
s2512-01
regarding the deceptive similarity as regards the words, the labels and the entire get-up of the cartons, packages and labels. The defendants have also copied the plaintiffs device of a white band above and below the device of the leaping tiger and the words. It is not necessary to deal with all the other similarities as the prominent and dominant features are deceptively similar, if not almost identical.
.50,00,000/- during the period October 1994 – March, 1995 to .6.50 crores during the period April 2000 – March 2001. In the absence of any evidence contrary to the same, I am inclined to accept the submission that the plaintiffs mark, device, logo have acquired the status of a well known mark and secondary significance and a trans-border reputation, whereby people in the trade and consumers associate the mark device etc. as those of the plaintiffs. In fact, they have a reputation in India itself. The plaintiffs have, therefore, established their reputation and goodwill therein sufficient to maintain successfully this action.4 s2512-01
statement and produce their evidence, I am inclined to draw an adverse inference that they have done so knowing that had they appeared and produced their evidence, the plaintiffs would have been able to establish damages at least to the extent claimed by them.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether defendants used marks identical or deceptively similar to plaintiffs trade marks.
Whether plaintiffs have established reputation and goodwill necessitating injunction.
Whether nominal damages claimed should be granted in absence of defendants.
S.J. VAZIFDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court