Allowed

M/S. Brio Bliss Life Science Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Nishu Medical Store & Ors.

Delhi HC18 Feb 2020CS(COMM)/718/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order adjudicates a suit for permanent injunction against defendants for passing off goods under the COGNICARE mark. The court conceded that the plaintiff established a prima facie case, granted the injunction against respondents 1, 3, and 4, dismissed claims against respondent 2 who remained in court, and directed parties to bear own costs.

What did the court decide?

Permanent injunction against defendants no. 1, 3, and 4 to restrain the use of the COGNICARE mark; parties to bear their own costs.

M/S. Brio Bliss Life Science Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Nishu… — Intellectual Property | Delhi HC (2020)

¶1

$~4

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 718/2019, IA No.18253/2019(u/O.XXXIX R.1&2 CPC)

¶4

BRIO BLISS LIFE SCIENCE PVT. LTD. ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Deepak Kumar Mahapatra, Adv.

¶5

Versus

¶6

NISHU MEDICAL STORE & ORS. ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Kumar Sumit with Mr. Chirag Gupta & Mr. Rajendra Beniwal, Advs. for D-2.

¶7

Mr. Neeraj Gulati, Partner D-4.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 18.02.2020

¶11

The plaintiff instituted this suit against defendants no. 1, 2, 3 and 4 namely (i) Nishu Medical Store; (ii) Vatave Pharmacls India Pvt. Ltd.; (iii) Infalife Pharma Inc; and, (iv) Indian Medicare, for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from passing off their goods/food supplements as that of the plaintiff by adopting the same mark as of the plaintiff i.e. COGNICARE and for ancillary reliefs.

¶12

The suit came up first before this Court on 23^rd December, 2019, when though the summons thereof were ordered to be issued, but no ex parte relief claimed granted.

¶13

On the next date i.e. 15^th January, 2020, only the counsel for the defendant no.2 Vatave Pharmacls India Pvt. Ltd. appeared and the suit, CS(COMM) 718/2019 Page 1 of 3

¶14

insofar as against the defendant no.2, decreed. However, the counsel for the defendant no.2 continues to appear.

¶15

Besides the counsel for the defendant no.2, only Mr. Neeraj Gulati claiming to be one of the partners of defendant no.4 Indian Medicare, appears today and states that the defendant no.4 had sourced the goods under the infringing mark from defendant no.3 Infalife Pharma Inc and has already returned all the goods and will not deal in goods under the said mark in future.

¶16

The said Mr. Neeraj Gulati on enquiry, whether has any proof of identity, has handed over his Aadhar Card to the Court Master who confirms the photograph thereon to be of the person present. A copy of the said Aadhar Card has been made and be tagged to Part-I File and the original be returned to Mr. Neeraj Gulati.

¶17

Mr. Neeraj Gulati Partner of defendant No.4 states that the defendant no.4 Indian Medicare has no objection to a decree for permanent injunction being passed.

¶18

The counsel for the plaintiff states that the documents supplied by the said Mr. Neeraj Gulati show the return of the goods to one Sh. Balaji Distributors.

¶19

Mr. Neeraj Gulati states that Sh. Balaji Distributors and Infalife Pharma Inc are both operated by one Mr. Rajesh and are at the same address.

¶20

Though the Registry has reported that the plaintiff, after 15^th January, 2020 did not take any steps for issuance of fresh notice to the unserved defendants but the counsel for the plaintiff states that an affidavit of service CS(COMM) 718/2019 Page 2 of 3

¶21

of defendants no.1, 3 and 4 has been filed on 13^th February, 2020. He states that in the said affidavit, it has been stated that the defendant no.1 Nishu Medical Store and defendant no.3 Infalife Pharma Inc have been served.

¶22

There is no reason to disbelieve the counsel.

¶23

None appears for the defendants no. 1 and 3 and no written statement has been filed.

¶24

The defendants no. 1 and 3 are proceeded against ex parte.

¶25

The counsel for the plaintiff states that subject to a decree for permanent injunction as sought being passed, the plaintiff will not pray for any other reliefs.

¶26

The plaintiff, on the basis of averments in the plaint and documents filed therewith, has made out a case for grant of permanent injunction, as sought.

¶27

A decree is accordingly passed, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants no. 1, 3 and 4, namely (i) Nishu Medical Store; (iii) Infalife Pharma Inc; and, (iv) Indian Medicare, of permanent injunction in terms of prayer paragraph 51(a) of the plaint dated 11^th December, 2019, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

¶28

Decree sheet be prepared.

¶29

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

¶30

FEBRUARY 18, 2020 ‘ak’..

¶31

Page 3 of 3

¶32

CS(COMM) 718/2019

M/S. Brio Bliss Life Science Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Nishu Medical Store & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Brio Bliss Life Science Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Nishu Medical Store & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Usv Private Limited Vs Panacea Biotec Limited

Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. Vs Verizona Private Limited & Ors.

Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Sree Devi Digital Systems Pvt. Ltd.

Ht Media Limited & Anr. Vs Www.Theworldnews.Net & Ors.

Vestige Marketing Private Limited Vs Vestige Labs Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

M/S Payless International Vs Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India

M/S Payless International Vs Export Credit Gurantee Corporation of India

M/S Payless International Vs Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India

Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. Vs Verizona Private Limited & Ors.

Sap Aktiengesellschaft & Anr. Vs M/S Varehouse Infotech & Ors.

Steelbird Hi Tech India Ltd. Vs Asia Fibre Glass Products & Anr.

Nidhi Suri Vs Baldev Raj Arora & Ors.

Dr. S.C. Vats Vs Ms. Shipra Singh & Ors.

Kei Industries Limited Vs Manoj Jain & Ors.