MADAN B. LOKUR, J.

( 1 ) THE Appellant is dissatisfied with an order dated 24th February, 2004 whereby an application filed by the Respondent for grant of an injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC was allowed and an application filed by the Appellant under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC was dismissed.

( 2 ) THE Respondent says that it is a partnership firm carrying on business since 1990 in the name of SAS Pharmaceuticals. It manufactures and markets various medicinal and ayurvedic preparations, one of them being REGULIN. It is the registered proprietor of its carton REGULIN and REGULIN FORTE under the provisions of the Copyright Act. This design was conceived in 1990 and in the carton the word REGULIN and REGULIN FORTE have been in use for a long time. The trademark REGULIN has a unique get up, design, placement of words, colour scheme etc. It has a high degree of recognition, reputation and goodwill and sales of this ayurvedic medicine runs into lakhs of rupees. It is a medicine for curing menstrual disorders in ladies.

( 3 ) THE allegation against the Appellant was that it has adopted a similar or identical trademark REGU-30 for the same type of medicine with a simi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document