Dismissed

Til Healthcare Private Limited v. Nucrest Pharma Private Limited

Madras HC12 Feb 2024C.S(COMM DIV)/106/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court decreed the suit based on an amicable settlement via a Memorandum of Compromise between the Plaintiff and the First Defendant. The Court held that the Second, Third, and Fourth Defendants are also bound by this compromise. No substantive legal issue was decided on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Decree passed in terms of the Memorandum of Compromise dated 08.02.2024.

Til Healthcare Private Limited Vs Nucrest Pharma… — Company and Corporate | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.S. (COMM. DIV.) No.106 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 12.02.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

C.S. (COMM. DIV.) No.106 of 2021

¶7

TIL. Healthcare Private Limited Represented by its Authorised Representative Mrs. Shabeena Thahseen

¶8

... Plaintiff

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

Nucrest Pharma Private Limited Represented by its Director, Vikram Ashok Panjwani 303, 3rd Floor, AHCL Homes, Near Shimpoli Telephone Exchange, New Link Road Borivali (W) Mumbai- 400 092, Maharashtra.

¶11

Sangeeta Pharma Private Limited Represented by its Director, Dilip Janardhan Kurangale Plot No. A35, Malegon MIDC, Sinmar, Nashik 422 103, Maharashtra Also, at SB-170, High Street Cum Corporate Centre, Thane -400 607, Maharashtra.

¶12

3. Channel Pharmaceuticals Limited

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

1/9

¶15

C.S. (COMM. DIV.) No.106 of 2021

¶16

Represented by its Director, Sir Nnamdi Henry Obi No.1, Nimo Street, Fegge Onitsha, Anambra-434232 Nigeria

¶17

Embassy Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Ltd. Rep. by its Director, Nnamdi Henry Obi 19, Rosonwo St. R. Aguda, Stleve, Lagoz Also at 41, Ademola Street, S/w Ikoyi Lagos, Nigeria * * 4^th defendant impleaded as per order dated 11.07.2022 in I.A. No.1585 of 2022. ...Defendants

¶18

PRAYER : PLAINT FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 1 CPC READ WITH ORDER IV RULE 1 OF THE ORIGINAL SIDE RULES OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT, SECTION 2 (1) (C) (xvii) READ WITH SECTION 7 OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 and SECTIONS 11, 27, 29, 134, 135 TRADEMARKS ACT, 1999 AND SECTION 14, 51, 55 & 62 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT 1957 to grant a judgment and decree on the following terms :

¶19

a. A permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their partners, their employees, officers, servants, agents, and all others acting for and on their behalf from manufacturing, selling, distributing, exporting, advertising, offering for sale, any products and in any other manner, directly or indirectly, dealing with any products in the name of 'APETAMED' which is deceptively similar or any other similar mark to

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

2/9

¶22

C.S. (COMM. DIV.) No.106 of 2021

¶23

the Plaintiff's registered trademark "APETAMIN" amounting to an infringement of the Plaintiff's registered trademarks Nos 511350 and 4145473 in Class 5,

¶24

b. A permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their partners, their employees, officers, servants, agents and all others acting for and on their behalf from manufacturing, selling, distributing, exporting, advertising, offering for sale, and in any other manner, directly or indirectly, dealing with any products in the name of 'APETAMED' amounting to passing off.

¶25

c. A permanent injunction restraining each of the defendants, its partners, directors, proprietors, subsidiaries, affiliates, franchisees, officers, servants, agents, distributors, stockists, representatives, licensees and anyone acting for or on their behalf directly or indirectly, as the case may be, from using the trade dress

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

3/9

¶28

C.S. (COMM. DIV.) No.106 of 2021

¶29

or in any manner whatsoever, and from selling, offering for sale, advertising, manufacturing, mentioning on their websites, dealing in any manner whatsoever or otherwise using the lay-out and /or color combination of the trade dress or get-up almost identical to the plaintiff's trade dress amounting to passing off of its trade dress;

¶30

d. A permanent injunction restraining each of the Defendants, its partners, directors, proprietors, subsidiaries, affiliates, franchisees, officers, servants, agents, distributors, stockists, representatives, licensees and anyone acting for or on their behalf directly or indirectly, as the case may be from performing any actions, especially using artistic works identical to plaintiff's original artistic works amounting to infringement of copyright therein.

¶31

e. A permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their partners, their employees, officers, servants, agents and all others acting for and on their behalf

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

4/9

¶34

C.S. (COMM. DIV.) No.106 of 2021

¶35

from using impugned mark "APETAMED" and trade dress in any of the websites, domain names, social media platforms, mobile application and other intermediaries in any language.

¶36

f. The Defendants be ordered to pay the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000 (Rupees One crore) as damages for having committing infringement of the plaintiffs registered trademark, passing off trademark and trade dress, infringement of copyright in respect of the plaintiff's artwork, dilution and tarnishment of both trademark and copyright in respect of the mark "APETAMIN".

¶37

g. A preliminary decree be passed in favour of the Plaintiff directing the Defendant to render true and proper accounts of the profits arising out of the amount sales generated by the defendant in respect of

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

5/9

¶40

C.S. (COMM. DIV.) No.106 of 2021

¶41

their alleged activities especially sale and export of products bearing the mark 'APETAMED' for their business, after the latter have rendered accounts;

¶42

h. To grant order of delivery up of any brochures/ printed material and/or material which infringes Plaintiffs' registered trademarks 'APETAMIN'

¶43

i. Costs and such other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, in circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice and equity.

¶44

For Plaintiff : Mr.M.S. Bharath For Defendants : Mr.Manish Saurastri for D1 Mr.R. Sathish Kumar for D2 D3 & D4 – Set exparte

¶45

JUDGMENT

¶46

The plaintiff and the 1 st defendant have arrived at an amicable

¶47

settlement, as seen from the Memorandum of Compromise, dated 08.02.2024 filed before this Court. The 2 nd defendant is the Manufacturer of the subject product. The learned counsel for the 2 nd defendant also submits that the 2 nd defendant will bind themselves as per the Memorandum of Compromise, dated 08.02.2024 entered into between the plaintiff and the 1 st defendant. The 3 rd and 4 th defendants have already

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

6/9

¶50

C.S. (COMM. DIV.) No.106 of 2021

¶51

been set exparte by this Court.

¶52

2. After recording the undertaking given by the 2 nd defendant as well as the Memorandum of Compromise, dated 08.02.2024 entered into between the plaintiff and the 1 st defendant, this suit is decreed in terms of the said Memorandum of Compromise, by making it clear that the 2 nd defendant is bound by the terms and conditions contained in the Memorandum of Compromise entered into between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. The remaining defendants viz., defendants 3 and 4 are also bound by the Memorandum of Compromise, dated 08.02.2024. The Memorandum of Compromise has been signed by the plaintiff and the 1 st defendant and counter signed by their respective counsels. The Memorandum of Compromise, dated 08.02.2024 entered into between the plaintiff and the 1 st defendant shall form part of this judgment and decree.

¶53

12.02.2024

¶54

Index: Yes/ No

¶55

Speaking order / Non speaking order Neutral citation : Yes / No vsi2

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶57

7/9

¶58

C.S. (COMM. DIV.) No.106 of 2021