BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

1. By way of this application, the plaintiff seeks an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the expression “Sugar Free” on any of the defendant’s products. It is the contention of the plaintiff that by using the expression “Sugar Free” on its products, the defendant is passing off its goods as those of the plaintiff. The plaintiff seeks to restrain such alleged passing off on the part of the defendant by way of a permanent injunction in the suit.

.2. The plaintiff claims to be the owner of the trademark “SUGAR FREE” alongwith its variants “SUGAR FREE NATURA”, “SUGAR FREE GOLD” and “SUGAR FREE D’LITE”. According to the plaintiff, the mark “SUGAR FREE” was originally coined and adopted by its predecessor (Cadila Chemicals Limited) in respect of its sugar substitute. The product which was originally marketed under the mark “SUGAR FREE” contained aspartame – an artificial sweetener. Subsequently, the plaintiff developed another sugar substitute using sucralose and that product was marketed under the name “SUGAR FREE NATURA”. It is stated that the suffix ‘GOLD’ was added to “SUGAR FREE” to distinguish the new product, “SUGAR FREE NATURA” which con

Click Here to Read the rest of this document