RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PVT LTD – Appellant
Versus
RAJ KUMAR PRASAD – Respondent
IAs No.8/2018 & 9/2018 (both of the plaintiff under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC and under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999)
1. Though these applications have come up before this Court for the first time today but the counsel for both the defendants appearing on advance notice has already filed replies thereto and which are on record and the counsel for the plaintiff states he has received copies of the said replies. The counsels have been heard.
2. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit inter alia for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing the trademark “ANAFORTAN” of the plaintiff by adopting the trade mark “AMAFORTEN” for the same medicinal preparations and to restrain the defendants from passing off their medicinal preparations as that of the plaintiff and for ancillary reliefs.
3. The suit was entertained and summons thereof ordered to be issued though no ex parte injunction granted. Vide subsequent judgment dated 25th April, 2014, the defendants were restrained by interim injunction from, till the pendency of the suit, using the trade mark “AMAFORTEN” or any other trade mark deceptively similar to the trade mark “ANAFORTAN” of the plaint
S. Surjit Singh Sahni Vs. Brij Mohan Kaur 65 (1997) DLT 670
Lakshmikant Shreekant (HUF) Vs. M.N. Dastur & Company Pvt. Ltd. 1998 (44) DRJ 502
Zulfiquar Ali Khan Vs. Straw Products Limited 87 (2000) DLT 76
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Vs. Natco Pharma Ltd. (2014) 210 DLT 591 (DB)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.