Disposed

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries v. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Madras HC22 Jul 2020CS/692/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

C.S.No.692 of 2011 between Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited and Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The Court framed an additional issue regarding the 2nd plaintiff's right in the trademark 'CABGOLIN' and set a case management schedule for witness examination and arguments.

What did the court decide?

No order in suit; additional issue framed regarding trademark right of 2nd plaintiff; case management schedule fixed for affidavits, cross-examination, and written arguments.

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Vs Intas Pharmaceuticals… — Intellectual Property | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN TE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY C.S.No.692 of 2011

¶4

C.S.No.692 of 2011:

¶5

*** 1.** Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited CD Plot No.3, Door No.8, Old Tower Block Street, Nandhanam Extension, Chennai – 600 035 rep.by its Constituted Attorney, Mr.K.Murugesan

¶6

2. M/s.Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited, CD Plot No.3, Door No.8, Old Tower Block Street, Nanadhanam Extension, Chennai-600 035. (Amended as per order of Court dated 18.04.2017 in A.No.1931 of 2017)

¶7

... Plaintiffs Vs

¶8

*** 1** .Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Chinubhai Centre, Off.Nehru Bridge, Ashram Road, Ahmadabad – 380009 Gujarat. ... Defendant

¶9

This Civil Suit coming on this day before this Court for hearing the court made the following order:

¶10

Today (09.08.2019), when the matter is called, the learned counsel for defendant filed the Additional Draft Issues before this Court.

¶11

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

The learned counsel for plaintiffs submitted that he has no objection to the said Additional Draft

¶13

¶14

Issues being framed by this Court.

¶15

After perusing the Additional Draft Issues filed by the defendant's counsel, this Court frames the following additional issue for trial:

¶16

"Whether the 2^nd plaintiff has any right

¶17

or interest in the trademark 'CABGOLIN'?"

¶18

The learned counsel on both sides submitted that

¶19

they intend to examine two witnesses each. Therefore, the learned counsel for plaintiffs is directed to file the Proof Affidavit on or before 26.08.2019 and the learned counsel for defendant shall cross examine the plaintiffs' side witnesses from 30.08.2019 to 20.09.2019.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for defendant is directed to file the Proof Affidavit on or before

¶21

30.09.2019 and the learned counsel for plaintiffs shall

¶22

cross examine the defendant's side witnesses from 14.10.2019 to 15.11.2019. If the counsel on both sides intend to examine more than one witness, they are permitted to do the same within the time frame fixed by this Court.

¶23

Both the parties are directed to file their written arguments on or before 27.11.2019.

¶24

Registry is directed to post the matter before the learned Additional Master-I for carrying out the aforesaid exercises.

¶25

The learned Additional Master-I is directed to permit the learned counsel on both sides to cross examine their respective witnesses on day-to-day basis and the parties are directed to scrupulously follow the aforesaid Case Management Schedule fixed by this Court.

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶27

¶28

After the completion of aforesaid exercises, list the matter before this Commercial Division on 05.12.2019.

¶29

Sd/-K.R.J
09.08.2019
//Certified to be a true copy//
Dated this the day of 2019.
Su/22.08.2019 COURT OFFICER
From 25.09.2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of
the Order/Judgment Decree in this format.

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries v. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries v. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

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

M/S.Denwood Merchandising and Industries Private Ltd. Vs K.Irshad Anwer

M/s Canadian Crystaline Waters Vs M/s Just Water (Tz) Ltd.

Kross Entertainment Llc and Another Vs Mr.B.Pradeep

Real Image Media Technologies Vs S.Keerthi Shankar

Maddock Films Pvt.Ltd. Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

M/s Arudra Engineering Pvt. Ltd, represented by its Managing Director Mr.R.Natraj, Vs M/s Pathanjali Ayurved Ltd, Represented by its Director