Dr.C.K.Nandagopalan Vs M/S Diabliss Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd.

Original Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant an ad interim injunction restraining the Respondents/Defendants by themselves, jointly and severally, their men, agents, servants, distributors, and or anyone claiming through them from passing off its products as low GI diabetic friendly using the scientific validation obtained based on the technology of the Plaintiff by manufacturing or selling or offering for sale in any manner advertising the same including e-commerce website and brick and motor stores pending disposal of the suit.

¶24

O.A.No.432 of 2021

¶25

Original Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant an ad interim injunction restraining the Respondents/Defendants by themselves, jointly and severally, their men, agents, servants, distributors, and or anyone claiming through them from using the name of the Plaintiff Dr.C.K.Nandagopalan, his awards, accolades, scientific validations and journal publications in any manner whatsoever, including on their products,

¶26

3

¶27

their website https diabliss.in and their YouTube channel https:// www.youtube.com/user/Diabliss Products.

¶28

These Original Applications coming on this day before this court for hearing in the presence of Mr.A.Ram Kumar Advocate for the Applicant in both Original Applications, and Mr.Krishna for M/s.Ramasubramaniam Associate, Advocates for the respondents in both Original Applications and upon reading the Judges Summons and the Common Affidavit of C.K.Nandagopalan filed in both Original Applications and the Counter Affidavit of V.R.Ramanathan filed in both Original Applications, the court made the following order:-

¶29

O.A.No.431 of 2021: This application has been filed

¶30

praying to grant an ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants by themselves, jointly and severally, their men, agents, servants, distributors, and or anyone claiming through them from passing off its products as low GI diabetic friendly using the scientific validation obtained based on the technology of the plaintiff by manufacturing or selling or offering for sale in any manner advertising the same including e-commerce website and brick and motor stores pending

¶31

4

¶32

disposal of the suit.

¶33

O.A.No.432 of 2021: This application has been filed praying to grant an ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants by themselves, jointly and severally, their men, agents, servants, distributors and or anyone claiming through them from using the name of the plaintiff Dr.C.K.Nandagopalan, his awards, accolades, scientific validations and products, their website https://diabliss.in/ and their YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/user/DiablissProducts.

¶34

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the respondents.

¶35

3.Sum and substance of the dispute is that the plaintiff herein claims to be the inventor of Herbal Product, which gives low GI sugar. He started an organisation under the name of M/s Revolution along with his brother Mr.C.K.Prem Kumar. He won several awards for his contribution and the herbal solution, he invented, which is one of the first of its kind in the world. In the year 2011, the second defendant had approached the plaintiff and requested to conceptualize the use of the herbal solution to make diabetic friendly (low GI) sugar and sugar related products. The second defendant and the plaintiff entered into a Memorandum of Understanding and incorporated a company for commercializing the technology. In the

¶36

5

¶37

year 2012, a technology transfer agreement was executed between M/s Revolution and the first defendant(then known as M/s eN-Joy Consumer Products Private Limited). Pursuant to the said agreement dated 15.12.2012, all scientific validations for the End-Products manufactured by using the technology invented by the plaintiff, were carried out by the first defendant under the guidance of the plaintiff only. The products were projected and promoted through the first defendant company. While so, the plaintiff company M/s Revolution terminated the agreement with the defendants on 16.12.2014. However, the plaintiff company was supplying herbal solution to the first defendant.

¶38

4.According to the plaintiff, the parties also arrived at an agreement for supply of the herbal solution, which would continue on an non-exclusive basis and in the mean while, M/s Revolution sells the technology. The first defendant may approach the purchaser of the technology for supply of the same. Alleging that the first defendant attempted to get hold of the technology by sidelining the plaintiff, appointed the fourth defendant as the Chief Technology Officer of Diabliss in the year 2018. The fourth defendant on board and the defendants, had attempted to analyse the technology, without consent of the plaintiff, with an intent to replicate/reverse engineer the technology of the plaintiff.

¶39

5.The prime allegation in the suit against the defendants is that

¶40

6

¶41

inspite of termination of the agreement and discontinuance of the supply of the herbal solution, the defendants surreptitiously were exploiting his scientific validation and reputation to market their product in the YouTube channel.The second defendant claiming as the inventor of the herbal product using the validation and clinical test conducted by the plaintiff as a Chief Technical Officer, which also featured in the video found in the YouTube channel. Certain claims made by the defendants in their website www.diabliss.in are alleged to be a feeble attempt to paint the name of the fourth defendant as the inventor of the product and had obtained the scientific validation for the technology which indicates violation to the plaintiff.

¶42

6.It is stated in the affidavit filed along with the application that the plaintiff has entered into an agreement with M/s Natural Life Speciality Private Limited to transfer the technology for a considerable sum, withholding the inventor rights, while attempting to commercialize to their low GI products using the technology invented by the plaintiff. They have been facing a roadblock, in view of the defendants' continuing parallel use of the plaintiff's name credentials, journal articles, scientific validation and YouTube video.

¶43

7.The respondents filed a common counter-affidavit, wherein they have categorically stated that, they are not using the validation of the

¶44

7

¶45

plaintiff nor using his reputation for promoting their products. In fact, in YouTube channel “DiablissProducts” referenced by the applicant, it was uploaded by the plaintiff, while he was with the defendants. It has been deactivated long back. However, on receipt of the notice from the plaintiff, they tried to delete it but the password and other credentials relating to the said account are not currently available. The first respondent has lost it. Hence, they were not able to remove the video. As far as the other materials found in their website www.diabliss.in, are concerned, it is contended that all the reference to the plaintiff or his journal articles or scientific validation referred and whatever reference about the plaintiff found in the website, were removed soon after the receipt of the notice.

¶46

8.The counter-affidavit of the respondents regarding the allegations

¶47

made against them by the plaintiff, is met out by the following terms:

¶48

“2.... The Respondents do not propose to use or cite any of the above, including any videos featuring or referring to the Apphcant in any manner whatsoever to promote the 1st Respondent's products. I submit that all references to the Applicant, his partnership firm M/s. Revolution and any person connected to the said firm, any awards and accolades of the Applicait and scientific validations and journal publications and videos have already been removed by the 1st Respondent and the Applicant is well aware of this fact.

¶49

3.In the event that the Applicant brings to light any further such material referring to him, his awards and accolades, scientific validations and journal publications, videos etc.in the 1st Respondent's marketing, advertising, packaging and promotional material on any platform, we hereby undertakes to remove the same.

¶50

8

¶51

4.In respect of the video posted on the website www.youtube.com in the channel "DiabbssProducts" referenced by the Applicant in the present Application at Pg.584 of the Applicants Typedset, the Respondents respectfully submit that the said channel was created almost a decade ago and the video itself was uploaded 8 years ago. The account in which the channel had been created and the video that is uploaded are dormant and have not been used by the Respondents for several years. No new videos have been uploaded in the said account. The password and other credentials relating to the said account are not currently available and the 1^st Respondent is unable to access the same. It is for this reason alone that the video (Screeushot fount at page 584 of the Applicant typedset) has not been removed though the 1^st Respondent had taken immediate and active steps to remove the same including flagging the video for removal and also writing to YouTube Itself requesting that the same be removed.The 1st Respondent has taken the above steps to remove the video without prejudice to its rights in respect of the video itself, which was created by the 1st Respondent.

5............

6............

7.............

a. References to the Applicant: The Respondents have removed all reference to the Applicant and his partnership firm M/s. Revolution and any person connected with that firm as early as in the year 2017 and this has been duly informed to the Applicant vide mail dated 24.08.2017 (found at page 522 of the Applicant's Typedset). The relevant paragraph from the Mail is extracted as follows:

¶56

“Dear Dr. Nandagopal :

¶57

I wonted to take this opportunity to inform you that reference to Revolution has been removed from Diabliss web site. Please review the web site and OK. In case we may have inadvertently left any references, please inform us so that we can do the needful."

¶58

9

¶59

It is submitted that there was no response from the Applicant to the above request, quite obviously for the reason that neither the website of the 1^st Respondent nor any of its marketing and promotional materials carry any reference to the Applicant nor his partnership firm M/s. Revolution or any other personnel connected with the said firm.

¶60

b .References to the Applicant's Awards and Accolades: There are no references to any awards, accolades of the Applicant on any of the marketing and promotional materials of the Respondents. It is pertinent to note that the Applicant has not filed a single current document with any such references before this Hon'ble Court.

¶61

c. Scientific Validations and Journal Publications: In so far as the scientific validations and journal publications are concerned, I submit that the several studieshad been sponsored, coordinated and carried out by the 1st Respondent in respect of its product. The right to use, publish and cite the results of such studiesvests exclusively with the 1^st Respondent. The Approcant has played no role in the procurement of the scientific validations and does not have any right to the same. Both these facts have been admitted by the Applicant himself as early as in December 2014 vide, his mail dated 23.12.2014 (Found at Pg. 481 of the Applicant's Typedset) and reiterated vide his mail dated 07.02.2017 (Found at Pg. 499 of the Applicant's Typedset). The relevant portions from the two communications are extracted as follows:

¶62

Mail dt. 23.12.2014

¶63

“.......

¶64

On behalf of Revolution I assure you that the scientific data mentioned in your mail will not be used by our research foundation and also any of our new customers both in India and other parts of the world due to the fact that Revolution have terminated the agreement with Diabliss.

10

.....”

Mail dt. 07.02.2017

“......

A.Every scientific validation that you have done was on your own without any concern from Dr. C.K.Nandagopalan.

¶70

B.The animal model of sugen life science with Dr.Damodar Reddy, neither the lab nor Dr.Damodar reddy was introduced to us so far.

¶71

.....”

¶72

Though the documents have been filed as part of the typedset, a completely contrary picture is sought to be presented in the Common Affidavit and the Plaint.

¶73

d.It is submitted that the 1^st Respondent having carried out the detailed studies of its product and its properties and having obtained scientific validations thereof is fully entitled to refer to the same in its promotional and marketing materials. It is an undeniable fact recognised and admitted by the Applicant himself in the communications referred to above.The two studies that the Applicant has now belatedly taken exception to are as follows:

¶74

i. Study carried out by Annamalai University - Effect of Diabliss Herbal Sugar (DHS) in Patients with Type - II Diabletes Mellitus; and

¶75

ii. Study carried out by M/s. Sugen Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. - Safety evaluation of a navel herbal sugar (DiaBliss) Acute & Sub Acute Toxicity Studies.

¶76

e.Having taken this position almost 7 years ago, it is surprising to find that allegations to the contrary are being made by the Applicant.This fact would alone suffice for this Hon'ble Court to deny the Applicant any relief and dismiss the present Applications with costs.

¶77

11

¶78

f.Notwithstanding and without prejudice to the 1st Respondent's aforementioned rights, as acknowledged by the Applicant, in view of the fact that the 1st Respondent is no longer using the herbal solution supplied by the partnership firm M/s. Revolution, the 1st Respondent has removed references to the said studies and validations from its website as on 20^th March 2021 and the same is not referred to therein as on date. This fact has been duly informed to the Applicant vide the 1st Respondent's vide letter dated 16.04.2021.

¶79

8......................

¶80

9......................

¶81

10...................

¶82

9.In the affidavit, the respondents have also made it clear that there is

¶83

no reference to any awards, accolades of the applicant on any of the marketing and promotional materials of the respondents. The scientific validations for their product was done independently by them and the role of the applicant in the scientific validation of the defendants' product, is nil.

¶84

10.On considering the rival contentions, the apprehension of the applicant that his validation upon awards and reputation and scientific innovation of the herbal solution being exploited by the respondents is dispelled through the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 and 2 and

¶85

it is to be noted that the scientific validation referred by the applicant, though alleged to have been used by the respondents 1 and 2 for their

¶86

12

¶87

products, this Court finds no prima-facie material to substantiate the same. If at all the said averments are to be tested, it can be done only after on completion of the trial. As of now, the apprehension expressed by the applicant i.e. his name, reputation and journal articles are being used by the respondents if true, then a prohibited order is necessary.

¶88

11.From the reading of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, this Court finds that there was such adoption of the applicants' work prior to the suit and the same has been removed and the applicant has made all efforts to remove video including flagging the video for removal and also written to YouTube. The respondent is directed to inform the YouTube to remove/block all the offending materials, in view of the order passed by this Court.

¶89

12.This Court finds, the applications seeking injunction against the respondents, who on their own carrying on business with their scientific validation, cannot be granted, except to the extend of using the plaintiffs name, photo, video and journal articles for the promotion of the defendants product. Accordingly, these applications are closed recording the undertaking given by the defendants in the counter. No order as to costs.

¶90

13

¶91

13.Call the matter on 26.08.2021 for filing written statement by

¶92

the defendants.

¶93

WITNESS THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT AT MADRAS AFORESAID, THIS THE 10^th DAY OF AUGUST 2021.

¶94

Sd./ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (Comm.Case)

¶95

//Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2021.

¶96

COURT OFFICER(O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

14

KY

19.08.2021

O.A.Nos.431 and 432 of 2021 in C.S.(Comm.) No.24 of 2021

¶101

ORDER DATED : 10.08.2021

¶102

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶103

FOR APPROVAL: 24.08.2021 APPROVED ON: 24.08.2021

¶104

15

¶105

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶106

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

¶107

TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021

¶108

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶109

O.A.Nos.431 and 432 of 2021 in

¶110

C.S.(Comm.) No.24 of 2021

¶111

Dr.C.K.Nandagopalan Old No.29, New No.65, 3^rd Main Rd, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai 600020.

¶112

...Applicant/Plaintiff (in both applications)

¶113

-Versus-

¶114

M/s.Diabliss Consumer Products Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director

¶115

Mr.Ramanathan Veerappan Director of M/s.Diabliss Consumer Products Private Limited

¶116

Ms.Sivakami Ramanathan

¶117

Director of M/s.Diabliss Consumer Products Private Limited

¶118

Dr.V.Rajalakshmi Director of M/s.Diabliss Consumer Products Private Limited

¶119

Ms.Swetha Satya Neni Director of M/s.Diabliss Consumer Products Private Limited

¶120

Mr.Shiv Vallabhaneni Chief Operating Officer, Director of M/s.Diabliss Consumer Products Private Limited

¶121

Defendants 1 to 6 having office at: Ground Floor and First Floor,

¶122

16

¶123

Type II/20, Dr.V.S.I.Estate, Thiruvanmiyur Chennai 600041.

¶124

... Defendants (in both applications)

¶125

O.A.No.431 of 2021

¶126

Original Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant an ad interim injunction restraining the Respondents/Defendants by themselves, jointly and severally, their men, agents, servants, distributors, and or anyone claiming through them from passing off its products as low GI diabetic friendly using the scientific validation obtained based on the technology of the Plaintiff by manufacturing or selling or offering for sale in any manner advertising the same including e-commerce website and brick and motor stores pending disposal of the suit.

¶127

O.A.No.432 of 2021

¶128

Original Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant an ad interim injunction restraining the Respondents/Defendants by themselves, jointly and severally, their men, agents, servants, distributors, and or anyone claiming through them from using the name of the Plaintiff Dr.C.K.Nandagopalan, his awards, accolades, scientific validations and journal publications in any manner whatsoever, including on their products,

¶129

17

¶130

their website https diabliss.in and their YouTube channel https www.youtube.com user Diabliss Products.

¶131

These Original Applications coming on this day before this court for hearing the court made the following order:

¶132

O.A.No.431 of 2021: This application has been filed

¶133

praying to grant an ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants by themselves, jointly and severally, their men, agents, servants, distributors, and or anyone claiming through them from passing off its products as low GI diabetic friendly using the scientific validation obtained based on the technology of the plaintiff by manufacturing or selling or offering for sale in any manner advertising the same including e-commerce website and brick and motor stores pending disposal of the suit.

¶134

O.A.No.432 of 2021: This application has been filed praying to grant

¶135

an ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants by themselves, jointly and severally, their men, agents, servants, distributors and or anyone claiming through them from using the name of the plaintiff Dr.C.K.Nandagopalan, his awards, accolades, scientific validations and products, their website https://diabliss.in/ and their YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/user/DiablissProducts.

¶136

18

¶137

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the

¶138

respondents.

¶139

3.Sum and substance of the dispute is that the plaintiff herein claims to be the inventor of Herbal Product, which gives low GI sugar. He started an organisation under the name of M/s Revolution along with his brother Mr.C.K.Prem Kumar. He won several awards for his contribution and the herbal solution, he invented, which is one of the first of its kind in the world. In the year 2011, the second defendant had approached the plaintiff and requested to conceptualize the use of the herbal solution to make diabetic friendly (low GI) sugar and sugar related products. The second defendant and the plaintiff entered into a Memorandum of Understanding and incorporated a company for commercializing the technology. In the year 2012, a technology transfer agreement was executed between M/s Revolution and the first defendant(then known as M/s eN-Joy Consumer Products Private Limited). Pursuant to the said agreement dated 15.12.2012, all scientific validations for the End-Products manufactured by using the technology invented by the plaintiff, were carried out by the first defendant under the guidance of the plaintiff only. The products were projected and promoted through the first defendant company. While so, the plaintiff

¶140

19

¶141

company M/s Revolution terminated the agreement with the defendants on 16.12.2014. However, the plaintiff company was supplying herbal solution to the first defendant.

¶142

4.According to the plaintiff, the parties also arrived at an agreement for supply of the herbal solution, which would continue on an non-exclusive basis and in the mean while, M/s Revolution sells the technology. The first defendant may approach the purchaser of the technology for supply of the same. Alleging that the first defendant attempted to get hold of the technology by sidelining the plaintiff, appointed the fourth defendant as the Chief Technology Officer of Diabliss in the year 2018. The fourth defendant on board and the defendants, had attempted to analyse the technology, without consent of the plaintiff, with an intent to replicate/reverse engineer the technology of the plaintiff.

¶143

5.The prime allegation in the suit against the defendants is that inspite of termination of the agreement and discontinuance of the supply of the herbal solution, the defendants surreptitiously were exploiting his scientific validation and reputation to market their product in the YouTube channel.The second defendant claiming as the inventor of the herbal product using the validation and clinical test conducted by the plaintiff as a Chief

¶144

20

¶145

Technical Officer, which also featured in the video found in the YouTube channel. Certain claims made by the defendants in their website www.diabliss.in are alleged to be a feeble attempt to paint the name of the fourth defendant as the inventor of the product and had obtained the scientific validation for the technology which indicates violation to the plaintiff.

¶146

6.It is stated in the affidavit filed along with the application that the plaintiff has entered into an agreement with M/s Natural Life Speciality Private Limited to transfer the technology for a considerable sum, withholding the inventor rights, while attempting to commercialize to their low GI products using the technology invented by the plaintiff. They have been facing a roadblock, in view of the defendants' continuing parallel use of the plaintiff's name credentials, journal articles, scientific validation and YouTube video.

¶147

7.The respondents filed a common counter-affidavit, wherein they have categorically stated that, they are not using the validation of the plaintiff nor using his reputation for promoting their products. In fact, in YouTube channel “DiablissProducts” referenced by the applicant, it was uploaded by the plaintiff, while he was with the defendants. It has been

¶148

21

¶149

deactivated long back. However, on receipt of the notice from the plaintiff, they tried to delete it but the password and other credentials relating to the said account are not currently available. The first respondent has lost it. Hence, they were not able to remove the video. As far as the other materials found in their website www.diabliss.in, are concerned, it is contended that all the reference to the plaintiff or his journal articles or scientific validation referred and whatever reference about the plaintiff found in the website, were removed soon after the receipt of the notice.

¶150

8.The counter-affidavit of the respondents regarding the allegations

¶151

made against them by the plaintiff, is met out by the following terms:

¶152

“2.... The Respondents do not propose to use or cite any of the above, including any videos featuring or referring to the Apphcant in any manner whatsoever to promote the 1st Respondent's products. I submit that all references to the Applicant, his partnership firm M/s. Revolution and any person connected to the said firm, any awards and accolades of the Applicait and scientific validations and journal publications and videos have already been removed by the 1st Respondent and the Applicant is well aware of this fact.

¶153

3.In the event that the Applicant brings to light any further such material referring to him, his awards and accolades, scientific validations and journal publications, videos etc.in the 1st Respondent's marketing, advertising, packaging and promotional material on any platform, we hereby undertakes to remove the same.

¶154

4.In respect of the video posted on the website www.youtube.com in the channel "DiabbssProducts" referenced by the Applicant in the present Application at Pg.584 of the Applicants Typedset, the Respondents respectfully submit that the said channel was created almost a decade ago and the video itself was uploaded 8 years ago. The account in which the channel had been created and the

¶155

22

¶156

video that is uploaded are dormant and have not been used by the Respondents for several years. No new videos have been uploaded in the said account. The password and other credentials relating to the said account are not currently available and the 1^st Respondent is unable to access the same. It is for this reason alone that the video (Screeushot fount at page 584 of the Applicant typedset) has not been removed though the 1^st Respondent had taken immediate and active steps to remove the same including flagging the video for removal and also writing to YouTube Itself requesting that the same be removed.The 1st Respondent has taken the above steps to remove the video without prejudice to its rights in respect of the video itself, which was created by the 1st Respondent.

5............

6............

7.............

a. References to the Applicant: The Respondents have removed all reference to the Applicant and his partnership firm M/s. Revolution and any person connected with that firm as early as in the year 2017 and this has been duly informed to the Applicant vide mail dated 24.08.2017 (found at page 522 of the Applicant's Typedset). The relevant paragraph from the Mail is extracted as follows:

¶161

“Dear Dr. Nandagopal :

¶162

I wonted to take this opportunity to inform you that reference to Revolution has been removed from Diabliss web site. Please review the web site and OK. In case we may have inadvertently left any references, please inform us so that we can do the needful."

¶163

It is submitted that there was no response from the Applicant to the above request, quite obviously for the reason that neither the website of the 1^st Respondent nor any of its marketing and promotional materials carry any reference to the Applicant nor his partnership firm M/s. Revolution or any other

¶164

23

¶165

personnel connected with the said firm.

¶166

b .References to the Applicant's Awards and Accolades: There are no references to any awards, accolades of the Applicant on any of the marketing and promotional materials of the Respondents. It is pertinent to note that the Applicant has not filed a single current document with any such references before this Hon'ble Court.

¶167

c. Scientific Validations and Journal Publications: In so far as the scientific validations and journal publications are concerned, I submit that the several studieshad been sponsored, coordinated and carried out by the 1st Respondent in respect of its product. The right to use, publish and cite the results of such studiesvests exclusively with the 1^st Respondent. The Approcant has played no role in the procurement of the scientific validations and does not have any right to the same. Both these facts have been admitted by the Applicant himself as early as in December 2014 vide, his mail dated 23.12.2014 (Found at Pg. 481 of the Applicant's Typedset) and reiterated vide his mail dated 07.02.2017 (Found at Pg. 499 of the Applicant's Typedset). The relevant portions from the two communications are extracted as follows:

¶168

Mail dt. 23.12.2014

¶169

“.......

¶170

On behalf of Revolution I assure you that the scientific data mentioned in your mail will not be used by our research foundation and also any of our new customers both in India and other parts of the world due to the fact that Revolution have terminated the agreement with Diabliss. .....”

¶171

Mail dt. 07.02.2017

¶172

“......

¶173

A.Every scientific validation that you have done was on your own without any concern

¶174

24

¶175

from Dr. C.K.Nandagopalan.

¶176

B.The animal model of sugen life science with Dr.Damodar Reddy, neither the lab nor Dr.Damodar reddy was introduced to us so far. .....”

¶177

Though the documents have been filed as part of the typedset, a completely contrary picture is sought to be presented in the Common Affidavit and the Plaint.

¶178

d.It is submitted that the 1^st Respondent having carried out the detailed studies of its product and its properties and having obtained scientific validations thereof is fully entitled to refer to the same in its promotional and marketing materials. It is an undeniable fact recognised and admitted by the Applicant himself in the communications referred to above.The two studies that the Applicant has now belatedly taken exception to are as follows:

¶179

iii. Study carried out by Annamalai University - Effect of Diabliss Herbal Sugar (DHS) in Patients with Type - II Diabletes Mellitus; and

¶180

iv. Study carried out by M/s. Sugen Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. - Safety evaluation of a navel herbal sugar (DiaBliss) Acute & Sub Acute Toxicity Studies.

¶181

e.Having taken this position almost 7 years ago, it is surprising to find that allegations to the contrary are being made by the Applicant.This fact would alone suffice for this Hon'ble Court to deny the Applicant any relief and dismiss the present Applications with costs.

¶182

f.Notwithstanding and without prejudice to the 1st Respondent's aforementioned rights, as acknowledged by the Applicant, in view of the fact that the 1st Respondent is no longer using the herbal solution supplied by the partnership firm M/s. Revolution, the 1st Respondent has removed references to the

¶183

25

¶184

said studies and validations from its website as on 20^th March 2021 and the same is not referred to therein as on date. This fact has been duly informed to the Applicant vide the 1st Respondent's vide letter dated 16.04.2021.

¶185

8...................... 9...................... 10...................

¶186

9.In the affidavit, the respondents have also made it clear that there is

¶187

no reference to any awards, accolades of the applicant on any of the marketing and promotional materials of the respondents. The scientific validations for their product was done independently by them and the role of the applicant in the scientific validation of the defendants' product, is nil.

¶188

10.On considering the rival contentions, the apprehension of the applicant that his validation upon awards and reputation and scientific innovation of the herbal solution being exploited by the respondents is dispelled through the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 and 2 and it is to be noted that the scientific validation referred by the applicant, though alleged to have been used by the respondents 1 and 2 for their products, this Court finds no prima-facie material to substantiate the same. If at all the said averments are to be tested, it can be done only after on completion of the trial. As of now, the apprehension expressed by the applicant i.e. his name, reputation and journal articles are being used by the

¶189

26

¶190

respondents if true, then a prohibited order is necessary.

¶191

11.From the reading of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, this Court finds that there was such adoption of the applicants' work prior to the suit and the same has been removed and the applicant has made all efforts to remove video including flagging the video for removal and also written to YouTube. The respondent is directed to inform the YouTube to remove/block all the offending materials, in view of the order passed by this Court.

¶192

12.This Court finds, the applications seeking injunction against the respondents, who on their own carrying on business with their scientific validation, cannot be granted, except to the extend of using the plaintiffs name, photo, video and journal articles for the promotion of the defendants product. Accordingly, these applications are closed recording the undertaking given by the defendants in the counter. No order as to costs.

¶193

13.Call the matter on 26.08.2021 for filing written statement by the defendants.

¶194

Sd./- G.J.J

¶195

10.08.2021

¶196

//Certified to be true copy//

¶197

Dated at Madras this the day of 2021.

¶198

COURT OFFICER(O.S.)

¶199

From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

Dr.C.K.Nandagopalan v. M/S Diabliss Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.C.K.Nandagopalan v. M/S Diabliss Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Il and Fs Tamil Nadu Power Company Ltd. Vs M/s.Larsen and Tubro Ltd.

Giridhar Sathyamorthy Vs Ms.Kanakadhara Srinivasan and 2 others

Mr.Giridhar Sathyamorthy Vs Ms.Kanakadhara Srinivasan and 2 others

M/s Raj Television Network Limited Vs Yupp Tv Usa Inc.

M/S Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited Vs M/S Bhairavi Traders

E.Mohan Vs M/s.Vari Marutheshwar Granites