Allowed

Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited v. Leeford Healthcare Ltd.

Delhi HC11 Jul 2024CS(COMM)/375/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court, on a compromise between the plaintiff and defendant during suit pendency, decreed the suit under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC. The decree incorporates the settlement terms regarding the cessation of infringing packaging. The suit and pending applications were disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed in favour of plaintiff in terms of settlement; Court fees refunded; Suit and applications disposed of.

Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited Vs Leeford Healthcare Ltd. — Specific Performance | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~21

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 375/2024, I.A. 10500/2024, I.A. 10501/2024, I.A. 10502/2024, I.A. 10503/2024 & I.A. 32907/2024

¶4

DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED .....Plaintiff

¶5

Through: Ms. Shivangi Kohli, Adv. (Through VC) versus

¶6

LEEFORD HEALTHCARE LTD. .....Defendant Through: Mr. Sahil Arora, Adv. (Through VC)

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 11.07.2024

¶10

CS(COMM) 375/2024 & I.A. 32907/2024 (under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC)

¶11

The present application has been filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”).

¶12

The plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining the infringement of copyright, passing off, unfair trade competition, rendition of account/damages, delivery up, etc. against the defendant.

¶13

It is submitted that during the pendency of the present suit, the plaintiff and defendant have arrived at a settlement, terms and conditions of which, are reproduced in paragraph 2 of the present application.

¶14

Learned counsels appearing for the parties also confirm the terms of the settlement, and pray that the suit be decreed in terms thereof.

¶15

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 14:46:18

¶16

This Court has perused the terms and conditions of the settlement between the parties, and finds the same to be lawful. In terms of the settlement, the defendant has acknowledged the plaintiff’s proprietary right in the strip packaging for its ‘PRACTIN’ product and does not challenge the plaintiff’s statutory and proprietary rights directly or indirectly at any time in future in India or worldwide. Further, the defendant has also stated that it is no longer manufacturing/selling/marketing ‘BIOPRON’ product under the impugned packaging. The defendant has also undertaken not to manufacture/sell/export/offer for sale, advertise directly or indirectly in future, the medical and pharmaceutical products under the impugned packaging, that may be identical or deceptively similar to the strip packaging of the plaintiff.

¶17

Accordingly, the present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, in terms of the settlement between the parties, as recorded in paragraph 2 of the present application, which shall form part of the decree.

¶18

Parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the settlement.

¶19

In view of the fact that the parties have arrived at a compromise, Registry is directed to issue a certificate for refund of full Court Fee in favour of the plaintiff.

¶20

Decree sheet be drawn up.

¶21

The suit, along with the pending applications, is disposed of.

¶22

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶23

JULY 11, 2024/kr

¶24

Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited v. Leeford Healthcare Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited v. Leeford Healthcare Ltd.

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

Alpha Corp Development Limited Vs Yes Bank Limited

Fdc Limited Vs Tas Med India Private Limited and Anr.

Combitic Global Caplet Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sh Suraj Chauhan

Ishwar Chand Gupta Vs H.R.Builders and Ors.

M/S Hari Chand Shri Gopal Vs Mr. Rohan Kumar Trading as M/S Bankey Bihari Enterprises/ Bankey Behari Products

Sandeep Jaidka Vs Mukesh Mittal & Anr.

Vinita Gupta Vs Amit Arora

M/S Resol Vinyls and Chlorides Limited Vs Mmf Global Trading Llc and Ors.

Fdc Limited Vs Tas Med India Private Limited and Anr.

Sanjay Gupta Vs the Registrar of Trade Marks

Manav Mandir Mission Trust Vs Union of India & Ors.

Freemans Measures Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ajay Sital and Others

Sandeep Jaidka Vs Mukesh Mittal & Anr.

Man Mohan Singh Attri Vs Amrindra Kumar Jha and Ors.