JUDGMENT (Oral)

C. Hari Shankar, J.

1. The plaintiff alleges infringement, by the defendant, by use of the mark PUMA for pharmaceutical products for pantoprazole tablets. The defendant is manufacturing and selling its pantoprazole tablets under the marks PUMA-DSR and PUMA-40.

2. PUMA, both as a word mark as well as a device mark, stand registered in favour of the plaintiff in various classes. The plaintiff holds registrations of:

(i) the word mark PUMA in Classes 18 and 25 w.e.f. 15th February 1977 and w.e.f. 4th November 2015 in Class 35,

(ii) the device mark [IMG]

(a) w.e.f. 25th February 1986 in Class 18,

(b) w.e.f. 3rd October 1991 in Class 24,

(c) w.e.f. 22nd February 1996 in Classes 3 and 9,

(d) w.e.f. 4th March 1996 in Class 16,

(e) w.e.f. 3rd February 2004 in Class 41,

(f) w.e.f. 8th November 1983 in Class 28,

(g) w.e.f. 27th July 1984 in Class 14,

(h) w.e..f 25th February 1986 in Class 25 and

(i) w.e.f. 12th November 2015 in Class 35.

(iii) the device mark [IMG]

(a) w.e.f. 3rd July 1990 in Class 28 and

(b) w.e.f. 5th February 1986 in Class 24, and

(iv) the device mark [IMG]

(a) w.e.f. 15th February 1977 in Classes 18 and 25

3. The word and device marks PUMA are, therefore, registered in