Dismissed

Ajanta Pharma Limited v. Anchal Lifescience Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC1 Apr 2016NMS/1186/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order confirms an ad-interim order as final against the first defendant in a suit for trade mark infringement for her non-appearance following service. The court grants the interim injunctions restraining infringement and pass-offing of the marks MINONIL and MINOWILL.

What did the court decide?

Confirmed ad-interim order as final against 1st Defendant; granted injunction restraining infringement and pass-offing of trade marks MINONIL and MINOWILL.

Ajanta Pharma Limited Vs Anchal Lifescience Pvt. Ltd… — Intellectual Property | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

904-NMSL771-16.DOC

¶2

Atul

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 771 OF 2016

¶4

IN

¶5

SUIT (L) NO. 188 OF 2016

¶6

Ajanta Pharma Limited…Plaintiff
Versus
Anchal Lifescience Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.…Defendants

¶7

Mr. Ashutosh Kane, a/w Ms. Niyati Davawala, i/b W. S. Kane &
Co., for the Plaintiff.

¶8

None for Defendant No. 1.

¶9

Mr. Kedar Dave, i/b Mr. Kishor Goswami, for Defendant No. 2.
Mr. Bijal Girishchandra Bramhabhatt, partner of the 2nd
Defendant.

¶10

CORAM:G.S. PATEL, J
DATED:1st April 2016

¶11

PC:-

¶12

1.Mr. Kane tenders an Affidavit of Service dated 1st April 2016
evidencing service on the 1st Defendant. None appears for the 1st
Defendant. It is to be noted that service on the 1st Defendant has
been effected successfully at the addressed obtained by the Plaintiff
from the record of the Registrar of Companies.

¶13

1 of 3

¶14

904-NMSL771-16.DOC

¶15

2.I have by a separate order passed today allowed the Petition
or leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent.

¶16

3.Since none appears for the 1st Defendant despite service, the
ad-interim order dated 8th March 2016 is confirmed as a final order
on the Notice of Motion as against the 1st Defendant.

¶17

4.In addition, now that leave under Clause XIV has been
granted, there will also be an order in terms of prayer clause (b)
against the 1st Defendant. Prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the Notice
of Motion read as follows:

¶18

“(a) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the Defendants by themselves, their directors, servants, stockists, dealers, distributors, agents and all person claiming through them be restrained by a temporary order and injunction of this Hon’ble Court from infringing the Plaintiff’s trade mark MINONIL bearing Registration No. 1035827 in class 05 by use of the impugned trade mark MINOWILL or any other trade mark deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s registered trade mark MINONIL bearing Registration No. 1035827 in class 05 in respect of medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations or in any other manner whatsoever;

¶19

(b) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit the Defendants by themselves, their directors, servants, stockists, dealers, distributors, agents

¶20

2 of 3

¶21

904-NMSL771-16.DOC

¶22

and all persons claiming through them be restrained by a temporary order and injunction of this Hon’ble Court from manufacturing and/or marketing and/or selling and/or advertising and/or exporting and/or trading in and/or otherwise dealing in medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations bearing the impugned trade mark MINOWILL or any other trade mark deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s well-known trade mark MINONIL so as to pass off or enable others to pass off the Defendants’ impugned goods as and for the Plaintiff’s well-known goods or in any other manner whatsoever.”

¶23

5.The Notice of Motion is disposed of in these terms. The
Plaintiffs will be entitled to recover the costs of the Notice of
Motion at the time of final disposal of the Suit from the 1st
Defendant.

¶24

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶25

3 of 3

Ajanta Pharma Limited v. Anchal Lifescience Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajanta Pharma Limited v. Anchal Lifescience Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajiv Suri Vs New Delhi Television Limited

Phonographic Performance Ltd. Vs Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd.

Smt. Sakshi Punjabi Vs Mrs. Shobha Kapoor and Ors.

Amit Babbar Vs Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd. Formerly Set India Pvt. Ltd. and 5 Ors.

Sanofi India Limited Vs Medipaams India Private Limited and Anr.

Hawa Valves (India) Private Limited Vs Hawa Sheraton Private Limited