Partly allowed

Ajanta Pharma Limited v. Mepfarma India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC1 Jul 2014S/315/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The suit was decreed ex parte against the first defendant who submitted. The second defendant, representing only as a manufacturer, consented to injunctions restraining them from using deceptively similar marks. The court decreed the suit only against the second defendant in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).

What did the court decide?

Perpetual injunction restraining defendants from using mark MAX-MOIST or similar marks in medicinal preparations as per prayer clauses (a) and (b).

Ajanta Pharma Limited Vs Mepfarma India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. — Bombay HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

¶1

19-S315-14.DOC

¶2

agk

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO. 315 OF 2014

¶4

Ajanta Pharma Limited…Plaintiffs
Versus
Mepfarma India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.…Defendants

¶5

Mr. Ashutosh H. Kane, i/b M/s. W.S. Kane & Co., for the Plaintiffs.
Ms. Archana Singh, for Defendant No. 2.

¶6

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 1st July 2014

¶7

PC:-

¶8

1.The suit is listed for ex-parte decree. The 1st Defendant, the
user of the mark in question has already submitted to a decree. The
2nd Defendant is represented today. Ms. Archana Singh, learned
advocate for the 2nd Defendant, states on instructions that the 2nd
Defendant is merely a manufacturer of items for the 1st Defendant.
It does not by itself use either the Plaintiffs’ mark MAXMOIST or
any other mark deceptively or confusingly similar to it. She also
states on instructions that the 2nd Defendant does not have any
goods, labels, advertising material or packing material bearing the
Plaintiffs’ mark MAXMOIST or infringing mark MAX-MOIST.

¶9

1 of 3

¶10

19-S315-14.DOC

¶11

2. The 2nd Defendant has no objection to a decree being passed in terms of the injunctions in prayers (a) and (b), which reads as follows:

¶12

“(a) That the Defendants by themselves, their directors, partners, proprietors, agents, servants, stockists, dealers, distributors and all persons claiming through them be restrained by a perpetual order and injunction of this Hon’ble Court from infringing the Plaintiff’s registered trade mark MAXMOIST bearing registration No. 1370434 in class 05 by the use of the impugned trade mark MAX-MOIST or any other trade mark deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s registered trade mark MAXMOIST bearing registration No. 1370434 in class 05 in respect of medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations or in any other manner whatsoever;

¶13

(b)That the Defendants by themselves, their
directors, partners, proprietors, agents, servants,
stockists, dealers, distributors and all persons
claiming through them be restrained by a
perpetual order and injunction of this Hon’ble
Court from manufacturing and/or marketing
and/or exporting and/or importing and/or selling
and/or advertising and/or trading in and/or
otherwise dealing in medicinal and
pharmaceutical preparations bearing the
impugned trade mark MAX-MOIST or any other
trade mark deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s
trade mark MAXMOIST so as to pass off or
enable others to pass off the Defendants’ goods
as and for the Plaintiff’s goods or in any other
manner whatsoever;”

¶14

2 of 3

¶15

19-S315-14.DOC

¶16

3. In that view of the matter, the suit is decreed against the 2nd Defendant in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). Learned advocate for the Plaintiffs does not press his claim for damages against the 2nd Defendant.

¶17

4. Drawn up decree dispensed with. No costs.

¶18

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶19

3 of 3

Ajanta Pharma Limited v. Mepfarma India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajanta Pharma Limited v. Mepfarma India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms. Asha Bhonsle Vs G.L. Lakhotia and 3 Ors.

Balam Rameshchandra Bajaj and Ors. Vs Bajaj Builders and Ors.

Mahafrid Mazdiasni (Gandhi) Vs Shahazad Gandhi

Cadila Healthcare Ltd. Vs Laurel Life Science (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Mrs. Betty Kapadia and Anr. Vs M/S.Magna Publishing Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Mr.Kannan Ranganathan Vs Bank International Indon- Esia and Anr.