Important Point – Court may not have pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction to try suit, that would not be a ground to disallow amendment to plaint.

Hima Kohli, J.

I.A. No. 25880/2015 (by the plaintiff u/O VI R 17 CPC)

1. At the outset, learned counsel for the plaintiff states that due to an inadvertent error made in para 21 of the application which reproduces the proposed para 22(c) sought to be incorporated in the plaint, damages have been quantified at Rs.20 lacs whereas the said figure should be read as Rs.1 crore. He requests that he may be permitted to carry out the necessary corrections in the application, to which the other side has no objection.

2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has been permitted to carry out the corrections in Court as requested for, against his signatures.

3. The present application has been filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, praying inter alia for permission to amend paras 18, 21 & 22 of the plaint.

4. The plaintiff has averred in para 18 of the original plaint that apart from the irreparable and incalculable losses and damages to its goodwill and reputation, it is also likely to suffer monetary damages in terms of loss of sales which are estimated to be to the tune of several lakhs. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the suit was instituted in the year 2008 and over the years, the estimated losses that were initially pegged at several lakhs, have mounted to several crores on account of the defendant’s alleged unlawful adoption of the trademark, “CLAVIX” for the medicines sold by them in the market in this duration.

5. Para 21 of the plaint is the suit valuation para. The amendment prayed for in this para is for revision of the court fees fixed for the reliefs of permanent injunction and damages from Rs.200/- to Rs.50,00,500/-. Mr. Anand, learned counsel submits that the court fees has to be paid on the said amount. Similarly, the plaintiff seeks permission to enhance the damages claimed from the defendants from Rs.20,01,000/- as was prayed for originally, to Rs.1 crore and seeks leave to pay the difference in the court fees.

6. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff had instituted the present suit in the year 2008 for the relief of permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from infringement of trademark, for passing off, etc., in respect of the mark, “CLAVIX” being used by them for manufacturing blood thinning medicines on the ground that the said mark infringes the plaintiff’s trademark, “PLAVIX” used for a similar medicine. Additionally, the plaintiff has raised a grievance against the defendants that they have adopted a deceptively similar trade dress for the aforesaid medicine as adopted by the plaintiff.

7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that at the time of instituting the present suit, the plaintiff had notionally valued the suit for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction at Rs.20,02,000/- on the basis of the monetary losses that it had estimated it would sustain due to the defendants’ acts of infringement and on account of misuse of its intellectual property. However, during the pendency of the suit, it has transpired that the defendants have fixed a price of their product sold under the mark, “CLAVIX” at around Rs.51.50 paise per 10 tablets. It is submitted that due to the continuous sales made by the defendants over the past several years, the quantum of damages suffered by the plaintiff in the event the suit is decreed in its favour, shall exceed Rs.1.00 crore. Learned counsel submits that the plaintiff reserves its right to enhance its claim for damages upon discovering better particulars of the defendants’ sales and revenues for the drug manufactured by it under the infringing mark, “CLAVIX’.

8. As for the valuation of the plaintiff’s mark, “PLAVIX” in relation to the drug in question, the plaintiff has set out in para 10 of the application, the sale figures of its drug, “PLAVIX” from the year 1998 till May 2008, which ranges from USD 12,688 to USD 53,686. Based on the said figures, the plaintiff has valued its intellectual property in the brand and trademark, “PL