Allowed

Prakash Melwani v. Super Formulations Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay HC10 Jul 2014S/571/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The defendant submitted to a decree on all prayer clauses of the plaint. The court granted a perpetual injunction against trademark infringement and an order for the destruction of seized infringing goods, disposing of the suit.

What did the court decide?

Perpetual injunction against trademark and copyright infringement; order for destruction of seized items by July 21, 2014; Court Receiver discharged.

Prakash Melwani Vs Super Formulations Pvt. Ltd. — Intellectual Property | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

7-S-5812014.DOC

¶2

ars

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT(L) NO. 581 OF 2014

¶4

Prakash Melwani…Plaintiffs
Versus
Super Formulations Pvt. Ltd.…Defendants

¶5

Mr.Alankar Kirpekar, i/b MAG Legal, for the Plaintiffs.
Mr.Vinod Bhagat, a/w Mr. Diren Karania, i/b G.S. Hegde, for the
Defendants.

¶6

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: July 10, 2014

¶7

PC:-

¶8

Not on board. By consent, called out and taken up for hearing and final disposal.

¶9

Mr. Bhagat, learned advocate, tenders a vakalatnama on behalf of the Defendant. It is taken on file.

¶10

On instructions, Mr. Bhagat says that the Defendant will submit to a decree in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the plaint, which read as follows:

¶11

1 of 4

¶12

7-S-5812014.DOC

¶13

(a)that the Defendant by itself, its
proprietor/partners, Directors, servants,
stockiests, dealers, distributors and agents be
restrained by perpetual order and injunction of
this Hon’ble Court form infringing the Plaintiff’s
registered trade mark WARMRUB bearing
registration No. 1685133 in class 05 by the use of
the impugned trade mark WARMRUB and/or
WARMRUB Label as shown in Exhibit E hereto or
any other trade mark deceptively similar to the
Plaintiff’s trade mark WARMRUB as shown in
Exhibit C hereto, in respect of medicinal and
pharmaceutical preparations or in any other
manner whatsoever;

¶14

(b)that the Defendant by itself, its
proprietor/partners, Directors, servants,
stockiests, dealers, distributors and agents be
restrained by perpetual order and injunction of
this Hon’ble Court from infringing the Plaintiff’s
copyright in the artwork titles as “WARMRUB” by
use of the deceptively similar artwork for the
WARMRUB as shown in Exhibit “E” hereto or in
any manner whatsoever so as to infringe the
Plaintiff’s copyright in the said artwork as shown
in Exhibit “A” hereto;

¶15

(c)that the Defendant by itself, its
proprietor/partners, Directors, servants,
stockiests, dealers, distributors and agents be
restrained by perpetual order and injunction of
this Hon’ble Court from manufacturing, marketing,
trading in, advertising and/or otherwise dealing in
medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations under
the trade mark WARMRUB and/or the impugned
packaging shown in Exhibit “E” hereto or any
other trade mark deceptively similar to the

¶16

2 of 4

¶17

7-S-5812014.DOC

¶18

Plaintiff’s well-known trade mark WARMRUB
and/or the packaging shown in Exhibit “A” hereto,
so as to pass off Defendant’ medicinal and
pharmaceutical preparations as and for the well-
known medicinal and pharmaceutical preparation
of the Plaintiff or in any other manner whatsoever;

¶19

So far as prayer (e) is concerned, the Court Receiver, already appointed under the ad-interim order dated 17th June 2014, has taken an inventory, and seized and sealed certain goods, cartons, packaging material, etc. In respect of these items sealed by Court Receiver, there will be a decree in terms of prayer clause (e) for their destruction by the Defendant. This shall be confirmed and reported to the Court Receiver.

¶20

In view of the Defendant submitting to a decree, the Plaintiff does not press prayer clause (d) for a decree in damage. It is clarified that fact that the fact that Defendant has submitted to a decree in this suit does not absolve him of liability in any other independent cause of action that may be brought by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is also at liberty to pursue his remedies against others claimed to be infringing any of the Plaintiff’s trade marks. The Plaintiff’s rights and contentions in respect of other infringers are left untouched by the present order.

¶21

Court Receiver to stand discharged after compliance with the decree in terms of prayer clause (d), without passing accounts and on the Plaintiff bearing his costs, charges and expenses. The destruction of the sealed and seized items to be completed on or before 21st July 2014.

¶22

3 of 4

¶23

7-S-5812014.DOC

¶24

Suit is disposed of in these terms. Drawn up decree is dispensed with.

¶25

In view of the above, Notice of Motion (L) No. 1371 of 2014 does not survive and is disposed of accordingly.

¶26

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶27

4 of 4

Prakash Melwani v. Super Formulations Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Melwani v. Super Formulations Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mazagaon Dock Ltd. Vs Official Liquidator and Anr.

M/S. Arcadia Premises Co-Op. Soc. Ltd. Vs M/S. Gupta Investment and Constrution Pvt. Ltd.

Smt.Ramabai Prakash Gope Vs Laxman Devji Bhate and 6 Ors.

Tata International Ltd. Vs Mr Pillari Giri Raj

M/S.Batliwalla and Karani. Vs Industrail Devp.Bank of India.

Dena Bank Vs Maharashtra Minerals Corpn Ltd. and Ors.