Allowed

Glaxo Group Limited v. Manish Modi & Anr.

Delhi HC6 Sept 2024CS(COMM)/621/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court decreed a trademark infringement suit by Glaxo Group Limited against defendants using the deceptively similar mark 'BETASOL'. The court accepted the defendants' undertaking, awarded damages, and ordered destruction of seized goods.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed for permanent injunction; damages of INR 4 lacs awarded; seized goods directed to be destroyed.

Glaxo Group Limited Vs Manish Modi & Anr. — Intellectual Property | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~22

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 621/2022, I.A. 14546/2022, I.A. 14549/2022, I.A.

¶4

14552/2022, I.A. 22348/2022, I.A. 765/2023 & I.A. 10224/2023

¶5

GLAXO GROUP LIMITED .....Plaintiff

¶6

Through: Mr. Urfee Roomi, Ms. Janaki Arun, Mr. Jaskaran Singh and Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advs. M: 9811600017

¶7

Email: scip@sc_ip.in

¶8

versus

¶9

MANISH MODI & ANR. .....Defendants

¶10

Through: Ms. Neha Singh, Mr. Rahul, Mr. N.K. Chaturvedi, Mr. Saurabh Singh and Mr. Sukhendra, Advs. M: 9625699912

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

% 06.09.2024 1. The present case has been filed seeking permanent injunction against the defendants and its related parties from using the infringing mark ‘BETASOL’ on the ground that it infringes the plaintiff’s registered mark, i.e., ‘BETNESOL’.

¶14

As per the case canvassed by the plaintiff in the present case, the plaintiff’s tablets under the plaintiff’s ‘BETNESOL’ tablet strip packaging, are sold in silver coloured aluminium strip packaging, contained in an outer packaging, as follows:

¶15

CS(COMM) 621/2022 Page 1 of 8

¶16

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 17/09/2024 at 10:58:22

¶17

The defendants are engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical and medicinal products, including, most prominently, tablets bearing the mark ‘BETASOL’. The defendants’ tablets bearing the defendants’ ‘BETASOL’ mark contain the active ingredient, Betamethasone Sodium Phosphate.

¶18

CS(COMM) 621/2022 Page 2 of 8

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

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 17/09/2024 at 10:58:22

¶21

The defendants’ tablets bearing the defendants’ ‘BETASOL’ mark are sold in a silver coloured aluminium strip packaging, with red lettering. The packaging of the defendants, as shown in the plaint, is reproduced as under:

¶22

CS(COMM) 621/2022 Page 3 of 8

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

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 17/09/2024 at 10:58:22

¶25

The plaintiff is the proprietor of a valid and subsisting registration, namely, registration no. 200822, for the mark ‘BETNESOL’ covering “pharmaceutical, veterinary and sanitary substances” in Class 5. The said registration is dated 21^st February, 1961, and has been renewed till 21^st February, 2030. The plaintiff became the subsequent proprietor of registration no. 200822, owing to an assignment from Glaxo Laboratories Limited in 1981.

¶26

The said suit has been filed since the defendants were found to be using the mark ‘BETASOL’, which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s ‘BETNESOL’ mark.

¶27

Side by side comparison of the rival tablet strip packaging, as given in the plaint, is shown as under:

¶28

This court notes the submission on behalf of the plaintiff that the plaintiff first conceived its mark ‘BETNESOL’, in the early 1960’s. Around the same time, the plaintiff began using the said marks on and in relation to

¶29

CS(COMM) 621/2022 Page 4 of 8

¶30

This is a digitally signed order.

¶31

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 17/09/2024 at 10:58:22

¶32

medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations, including, but not limited to tablets, used to treat a wide variety of diseases, including allergies, arthritis, and inflammatory disorders.

¶33

This Court had recorded on the last date of hearing that the defendants are ready to give up the mark ‘BETASOL’. It is further submitted that after the injunction order dated 07^th September, 2022, the use of the mark ‘BETASOL’ has been stopped by the defendant. 10. Pursuant to the last order, an affidavit of undertaking has been filed on behalf of the defendants, which reads as under:

¶34

CS(COMM) 621/2022 Page 5 of 8

¶35

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for the defendant submits that the affidavit of undertaking filed on behalf of defendant no.1 shall be binding on defendant no.2 also. The said statement is noted and taken on record.

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for the defendants further submits that the

¶38

CS(COMM) 621/2022 Page 6 of 8

¶39

This is a digitally signed order.

¶40

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

¶41

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/09/2024 at 10:58:22

¶42

defendants shall not use the mark ‘BETASOL’ as well as the trade dress and packaging, which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trademark ‘BETNESOL’ or their trade dress/packaging.

¶43

The aforesaid undertaking on behalf of both the defendants is taken on record. The defendants are held bound by their undertaking given before this Court.

¶44

This Court notes that at the time of issuing summons, a local commissioner had been appointed, who has duly filed his report. As per the report of the local commissioner, the following products were confiscated during the course of execution of the local commission:

¶45

CS(COMM) 621/2022 Page 7 of 8

¶46

¶47

Considering the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff is entitled for damages.

¶48

Considering the documents on record and the submissions made before this Court, this Court is of the view that ends of justice shall be met if cost/damages of ₹4 lacs is paid by the defendants, to the plaintiff.

¶49

At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that the cost/damages payable to the plaintiff be paid through the counsel for the plaintiff.

¶50

Learned counsel appearing for the defendant on the other hand submits that some time may be granted to give the said amount of ₹4 lacs to the plaintiff.

¶51

Accordingly, it is directed as follows:

¶52

19.1 The suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff in terms of prayer Clause paragraph 67 (a) to (d) of the plaint.

¶53

19.2 Cost/damages of ₹4 lacs shall be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff, through the plaintiff’s counsel, i.e., Sujata Chaudhri IP Attorneys, within a period of ten weeks.

¶54

19.3 The seized goods, as detailed in the Local Commissioner’s report, shall be destroyed by the defendants, in the presence of the plaintiff’s representatives.

¶55

Decree sheet, accordingly, be drawn up.

¶56

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

¶57

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶58

SEPTEMBER 6, 2024/kr

¶59

CS(COMM) 621/2022 Page 8 of 8

¶60

Glaxo Group Limited v. Manish Modi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Glaxo Group Limited v. Manish Modi & 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

Trimble Solutions Corporation Vs Conserve Solutions LLP & Anr.

Ajay Gupta & Anr. Vs M/S Greenways

Star India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Indusind Media and Communication Ltd. (Incablenet) & Ors.

Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. Vs Shree Shubh Rathnam Associates and Ors.

Tata Sons Private Limited Vs Tatabeauty Cosmetics Ltd.

Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs Mr. Harshit Kumar Jain

Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. & Anr. Vs Bio Logic and Psychotropics India Private Ltd. & Anr.

Paragon Cable India & Anr. Vs Essee Networks Private Limited & Ors.

Sankalp Rehabilitation Trust Vs Union of India and Ors.

Trimble Solutions Corporation Vs Conserve Solutions LLP & Anr.

Star India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Indusind Media and Communication Ltd. (Incablenet) & Ors.

Shenzhen Hottech Electronics Co. Ltd. Vs the Registrar of Trademarks, Trade Marks Registry, New Delhi

Tata Sons Private Limited Vs Tatabeauty Cosmetics Ltd.

Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs Mr. Harshit Kumar Jain