Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi, Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, JJ.
Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Sami Khatib and Anr. - Respondents
Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 15149 of 2011
Decided On : 23-05-2011
Injunction - Trademark - The court upheld the injunction restraining the petitioner from using a trademark similar to the plaintiff's trademarks, finding that the plaintiff had made a case for grant of injunction and would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction was not granted.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner appealed against an injunction restraining them from using a trademark similar to the plaintiff's trademarks.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had made a case for grant of injunction, the balance of convenience was in their favor, and they would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction was not granted.
Issues: The issue was whether the injunction against the petitioner from using a similar trademark should be upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the injunction after considering the pleadings and documents produced by the parties, finding that the plaintiff had made a case for grant of injunction and would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction was not granted.
Final Decision: The special leave petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was given liberty to apply for early disposal of the suit.
ORDER :
This petition is directed against order dated 08.04.2011 of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the injunction granted by the learned Single Judge restraining the petitioner from manufacturing, marketing, selling and/or exporting medicinal or pharmaceutical preparations or any other goods under the impugned trade mark "Hb TONE"/"HB TONE" or any other mark identical with and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' trademarks "ARBITONE", "RB TONE" and/or "HB RON" was dismissed.
2. We have heard Shri Altaf Ahmed, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri L.N. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents at some length and carefully perused the record. In our view, both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have, after threadbare consideration of the pleadings and documents produced by the parties, recorded concurrent conclusions that the plaintiff-respondents have been able to make out a case for grant of injunction; that the balance of convenience is in their favour and that they will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction prayed for is not granted.
3. The discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench does not suffer from any perversity. Therefore, we do not find any valid ground or justification to interfere with the impugned order by exercising power under Article 136 of the Constitution. In this connection, reference can usefully be made to the judgments of this Court in N.R. Dongre & Ors. v. Whirlpool Corporation & Anr., (1996) 5 SCC 714 and Skyline Education Institute (India) (P) Ltd. v. S.L. Vaswani & Anr., (2010) 2 SCC 142
4. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. It is needless to say that the observations made in the interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench shall not prejudice either party at the time of final disposal of the suit.
5. The petitioner is given liberty to apply for early disposal of the suit.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
