Back
AMIT BANSAL
Sugen, Inc. – Appellant
Versus
K Vijaya Prakash – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Amit Bansal, J. (Oral)
I.A.1383/2016 (O-XXXIX R-2A of the CPC) and I.A. 10292/2016 (O-XXXIXR-2A of the CPC)
1. These applications have been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to hold the defendants liable for contempt, having violated the injunction order dated 6th January, 2016 passed by this Court.
2. The present suit was filed alleging infringement of three patents of the plaintiffs, being Indian Patents No. 249316, 250050 and 243571. The said three patents cover and claim the commercial product of the plaintiffs "Crizotinib" sold under the trade names "Xalkori." and "Crizalk." in India.
3. Vide order dated 6th January, 2016, ex-parte ad interim injunction was passed in the following terms:
"...Plaintiff no. 2 is the owner of Indian Patent No. 250050...Defendants are acting in concert, inasmuch as are under a common control and management. Plaintiffs have come to know that defendant nos. 1 to 7 in concert of each other are either manufacturing the impugned generic product in India and exporting, selling and/or offering for sale the same in Bangladesh and/or at the very least, surreptitiously and clandes
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to issue a permanent injunction against patent infringement based on the Defendant's undertaking and lack of manufacture o....
Willful disobedience of court orders, even if later complied with, can lead to significant penalties to uphold the authority of the court.
Court ruled that habitual infringement of trademarks in pharmaceuticals demands strict judicial action, including severe penalties and compliance oversight.
Court emphasizes that prior use and goodwill in trade names give rise to rights that protect against passing off and copyright infringement.
Merely riding on strength of his trade mark registration, is indulging in conduct which is not transparent.
The court granted a permanent injunction against defendants for using a deceptively similar trademark, affirming the plaintiff's established rights over their well-known trademarks.
The court established that third parties can be held liable for contempt if they knowingly assist in violating court orders, reinforcing the court's authority to enforce compliance.
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
