Disposed

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v. Three B Health Care Ltd.

Delhi HC10 Aug 2016CS(OS)/1646/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court decreed suit against defendant no. 2 for permanent injunctions based on their no objection. Stayed suit proceedings pending outcome of trademark revocation application before IPAB due to prima facie similarity.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed against defendant no. 2 with permanent injunctions under prayers (i) and (ii). Further proceedings stayed.

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited Vs Three B Health… — Intellectual Property | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~15

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(OS) 1646/2012 & IA No.8929/2014

¶4

SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr Hemant Singh, Ms Mamta Jha, Mr Shashi Ojha and Ms Ambika Gautam, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

THREE B HEALTH CARE LTD. & ORS ..... Defendants Through: Ms Paulami Ganguly and Mr Harsh Vardhan, Advocates for D-2. Mr Praveen K. Mittal, Advocate for D-3.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 10.08.2016

¶10

The learned counsel appearing for defendant no.2 (Mankind Pharma Limited) states that the defendant no.2 is not marketing the products of defendant no.3 which are alleged to be offending the trademark of the plaintiff. She further states that she has no objection if the suit is decreed against defendant no.2. Accordingly, the suit is decreed against defendant no.2 in terms of prayers (i) and (ii) which are quoted below:-

¶11

“i) An order for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, whether acting by itself or through its partners or proprietor, as the case may be, its officers, servants, agents and representatives, or any of them from: a) Manufacturing, marketing, selling and/or using in

¶12

relation to its medicinal pharmaceutical preparations and other like medicines the infringing mark VOLIKING or any other mark deceptively similar thereto, as its Trademark or Trademark being identical to the Plaintiff’s Trademark “VOLINI” so as to infringe upon the Plaintiff’s registered Trademark;

¶13

b) Manufacturing, marketing, selling and/or using in relation to its medicinal pharmaceutical preparations and other like medicines the infringing mark VOLIKING or any mark deceptively similar thereto being identical to the Plaintiff’s distinctive and reputed Trademark “VOLINI” so as to pass off their medicines and business or enable others to pass off the Defendants business and medicines as and for those of the Plaintiff or in some way connected therewith;

¶14

c) Manufacturing, marketing, selling and/or using in relation to their medicinal pharmaceutical preparations and other like medicines the infringing label of VOLIKING, bearing a similar font of writing, get-up, and representation which is identical with and/or is substantially similar to the font of writing, get-up, and representations constituting trade dress of the Plaintiff’s original artistic label of “VOLINI” so as to infringe upon the Plaintiff’s artistic work;

¶15

ii) An order for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, by in itself, its proprietor/partners, its servants, assignees, transferees and all those connected with the Defendants from manufacturing, marketing, exporting, selling and/or offering for sale the medicinal pharmaceutical preparations and other like medicines under the mark VOLIKING or any other mark deceptively similar to that of the Plaintiff’s registered Trademark “VOLINI” with get-up, arrangement of features, layout, etc., which resembles the Plaintiff’s “VOLINI” pharmaceutical preparations product tablet strip and the box as described in Para 18 and/or in any

¶16

manner whatsoever doing any other thing as may be likely to cause confusion or deception amounting to passing-off of the medicines and business of the Defendants as and for those of the Plaintiff.”

¶17

The learned counsel for the plaintiff does not press for other prayers against defendant no.2.

¶18

The decree sheet be drawn.

¶19

The plaintiff has filed an application for revocation of the defendants trademark being ORA No.197/2013/TM/DEL before the IPAB. It prima facie appears that the defendants trademarks are similar to that of the plaintiff and, therefore, further proceedings of the suit are stayed till the conclusion of the proceedings before the IPAB.

¶20

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶21

AUGUST 10, 2016 MK

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v. Three B Health Care Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v. Three B Health Care 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

Ramesh H Ramchandani Vs K.H.Ramchandani & Ors.

Smt. Sheetal Sharma Vs M/S. Sreekrishna Farms Pvt. Ltd.

Smt. Chandra Prabha Vs Shri Satish C. Sharma & Others De+

Sona Devi Vs Renu

Rajendra Prasad Jindal Vs Anjali Seth and Another

Neeraj Kumar Vs Nafe Singh & Ors.

Shalu Chugh Vs Surinder Mohan & Ors.

Goyal Mg Gases P.Ltd. Vs Rathi Ispat and Anr.

Sh. Raj Kamal Singh & Ors. Vs Abhay Kalra

Magma Fincorp Ltd. Vs Satish Kumar & Anr.

Magma Fincorp Limtied Vs Vindo Kumar & Ors.

Power Mech Projects Ltd. Vs Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporaton & Anr.

M.M.T.C. Ltd. Vs M/S Intergold(Delhi) Pvt. Ltd.