Disposed¶19

Glaxo Group Ltd. v. United Biotech P. Ltd.

Delhi HC12 Mar 2025CS(COMM)/480/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Consent decree; trademark HEPITEC (regn. 802647, class 05) versus HEPROTEC; withdrawal of trade mark application no. 1803347; Glaxo Group Ltd v United Biotech P. Ltd; CS(COMM) 480/2017; High Court of Delhi; Mini Pushkarna J; 12.03.2025; settlement found lawful; parties bound; damages and costs foregone; decree in terms of Para 24(a)-(b); suit disposed.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed with the consent of the parties in favour of plaintiff GLAXO GROUP LTD. and against defendant UNITED BIOTECH P. LTD. in terms of the recorded settlement and in terms of Para – 24(a) and (b) of the plaint; plaintiff foregoes damages and costs; decree sheet to be drawn up; suit disposed of. ¶19

Glaxo Group Ltd. Vs United Biotech P. Ltd. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the defendant's use of the mark HEPROTEC and its pending trade mark application bearing number 1803347 stood in conflict with the plaintiff's registered trademark HEPITEC (registration number 802647, class 05), as reflected in the settlement terms recorded by the Court. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

By settlement term (a), the defendant acknowledged that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademark HEPITEC under registration number 802647 in class 05 for pharmaceutical preparations and substances; this acknowledgment forms part of the recorded settlement decreed by the Court.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

By settlement term (b), the defendant undertook not to manufacture, market, sell, offer for selling, or advertise, directly or indirectly, any pharmaceutical preparations under the mark HEPROTEC or any other mark similar to the plaintiff's mark HEPITEC.

¶10

Key takeaways

By settlement term (c), the defendant undertook to withdraw its trade mark application bearing number 1803347 for the mark HEPROTEC within 7 days of execution of the joint compromise application, and not to file any trade mark application for that mark or any deceptively similar mark to the plaintiff's registered trademark HEPITEC.ratio¶11
By settlement term (c), the defendant further undertook not to object to any trade mark application or registration by the plaintiff pertaining to the trade mark HEPITIC.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court, CS(COMM) 480/2017 (MINI PUSHKARNA, J.; decision dated 12.03.2025): Consent decree of a trademark suit pursuant to a recorded settlement between Glaxo Group Ltd (plaintiff) and United Biotech P. Ltd (defendant) concerning the marks HEPITEC and HEPROTEC. Settlement terms decreed: (a) defendant acknowledged plaintiff as registered proprietor of trademark HEPITEC, registration no. 802647, class 05, for pharmaceutical preparations and substances; (b) defendant undertook not to manufacture, market, sell, offer for selling or advertise, directly or indirectly, pharmaceutical preparations under mark HEPROTEC or any similar mark; (c) defendant undertook to withdraw trade mark application no. 1803347 for HEPROTEC within 7 days of execution of the joint compromise application, not to file applications for that or any deceptively similar mark, and not to object to plaintiff's applications/registrations pertaining to HEPITIC; (d) plaintiff forewent damages (prayer 24(e)) and costs (24(f)). The Court found the settlement lawful, held the parties bound by it, decreed the suit in terms of the settlement and Para – 24(a) and (b) of the plaint, ordered the decree sheet, and disposed of the suit.

¶1

$~13

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CS(COMM) 480/2017 GLAXO GROUP LTD. .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Vardaan Anand, Advocate (M:9911167179)

¶4

versus

¶5

UNITED BIOTECH P. LTD. .....Defendant Through: Mr. Deepankar Mishra, Mr. Mohit Goel, Mr. Sidhant Goel, Advocates (M:9716746496)

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶7

O R D E R % 12.03.2025

¶8

Learned counsels for the parties submit that the parties have arrived at a settlement. They have handed over the terms of settlement between the parties, which are reproduced, as under:

¶9

“(a) The defendant acknowledges that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor to the trademark HEPITEC under the registration number 802647 in class 05 for pharmaceutical preparations and substances.

¶10

(b) The defendant undertakes not to manufacture, market, sell, offer for selling, advertise, directly or indirectly in any pharmaceutical preparations under the mark HEPROTEC or any other mark similar to that of the plaintiff’s mark HEPITEC.

¶11

(c) The defendant undertakes to withdraw the trade mark application bearing number 1803347 for the mark HEPROTEC within 7 days of execution of the instant joint compromise application and further undertakes to not file any trade mark application for the aforementioned mark or any other deceptively similar mark to that of the plaintiff’s registered trademark HEPITEC and shall not object to any trademark application or registration by the plaintiff pertaining to the trade mark HEPITIC.

¶12

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 17/03/2025 at 11:41:23

¶13

(d) In view of the above, plaintiff will forego their right to damages as claimed in the prayer paragraph 24 (e) and cost of the proceedings as set out in paragraph 24 (f), from the defendants. Further, the suit may decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in terms of paragraph 24 (a) and paragraph 24 (b) of the plaint.”

¶14

Learned counsels for both the parties confirm the terms of the settlement and submit that the suit be decreed in terms thereof.

¶15

This Court has perused the terms of the settlement and finds the same to be lawful.

¶16

The parties are held bound by the terms of the settlement.

¶17

Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, in terms of the settlement as captured hereinabove, and in terms of Para – 24 (a) and (b) of the plaint.

¶18

Let decree sheet be drawn up.

¶19

The present suit, accordingly, stands disposed of.

¶20

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶21

MARCH 12, 2025 au

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

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 17/03/2025 at 11:41:23

Glaxo Group Ltd. v. United Biotech P. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Glaxo Group Ltd. v. United Biotech P. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Johnson & Johnson Vs Pritamdas Arora T/a M/S Medserve & Anr.

Jangeer Singh Trading as Jangeer Singh Kabulshah Agriculture Works Vs Yogesh Jangid Trading as Jangid Agro Engineering & Anr.

Dfm Foods Limited Vs Chandel Store & Ors.

Vans Inc. Usa Vs Fateh Chand Bhansali Trading as Pawan Trading Co. and Anr.

Advertising. Tech Fz-Llc Vs Z1 Tech

Pharmacyclics Llc & Anr. Vs Hetero Labs Limited & Ors.

M/S. Enzymes Infra Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S National Building Construction Corporation Ltd.

Devdarshan Dhoop Industries & Anr. Vs Adhyatmik Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Kunj Behari Sarraf Vs Registrar of Trade Marks

Dfm Foods Limited Vs Chandel Store & Ors.

Vans Inc. Usa Vs Fateh Chand Bhansali Trading as Pawan Trading Co. and Anr.

Bridgestone Corporation Vs Divi Automotive and Petrochem India & Anr.

Deepak Kapoor Vs North Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Veena Khera & Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner and Ors.