IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Sanofi India Limited - Appellant
Versus
Saint Michael Biotech & Ors. - Respondents
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 161 of 2023 & CS(COMM) 348 of 2023 & I.A. 10440 of 2023
Decided On : 14-12-2023
Trademark Infringement - Pharmaceutical Preparations - Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Section 29, Section 30 - The court issued a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using marks similar to the plaintiff's mark 'COMBIFLAM' and directed them to withdraw and surrender the trademark registrations for 'COMFLAM' and 'CONIFLAM'.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff sought permanent injunction against the Defendants for using marks similar to 'COMBIFLAM' in pharmaceutical preparations. The Defendants agreed to cease the use of the marks and surrender the trademark registrations.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found in favor of the Plaintiff and issued a permanent injunction against the Defendants, directing them to withdraw and surrender the trademark registrations for the infringing marks.
Issues: Trademark infringement, use of similar marks in pharmaceutical preparations, surrender of trademark registrations.
Ratio Decidendi: The Defendants were restrained from using marks similar to the Plaintiff's mark 'COMBIFLAM' and were directed to withdraw and surrender the trademark registrations for the infringing marks.
Final Decision: The Court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff, issued a permanent injunction against the Defendants, and directed them to withdraw and surrender the trademark registrations for the infringing marks.
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 161/2023 & CS(COMM) 348/2023
2. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff-Sanofi India Limited, seeking permanent injunction against the Defendants, restraining them from using the marks `COMFLAM/COMFLAM+' and `CONIFLAM', as also any mark which is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's mark `COMBIFLAM'.
3. The Plaintiff's mark `COMBIFLAM' bearing no. 426051 is registered under class 5 for `medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations', is a well- known analgesic and anti-inflammatory tablet adopted in the year 1984 with respect to a combination of `Ibuprofen' and `Paracetamol' tablets.
4. It is averred that the Defendants in the present case are also engaged in identical business of manufacturing and selling pharmaceutical and medical preparations under the mark `COMFLAM' bearing registration number 1052537 under class 5.
5. Vide order dated 10th July, 2023, Defendants had agreed not to use the mark `CONIFLAM'. As per the last order dated 24th November, 2023 the Court injuncted the use of the mark `COMFLAM' and the accompanying packing, in respect of pharmaceutical preparations. The Court also directed the owners of both Saint Michael Biotech and Sunny Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. to be present in Court and present the complete sales figure since inception.
6. Today, the statement of Mr. Amit Kumar who is the representative of M/s. Sunny Drugs & Pharmaceutical Ltd. and Saint Michael Biotech has been recorded in the following terms:
"I am the authorised representative on behalf of M/s Sunny Drugs & Pharmaceutical Limited and Saint Michael Biotech. Saint Michael Biotech is a partnership firm of Shri Manohar Lal Khanna and Shri. Naresh Puri and M/s Sunny Drugs & Pharmaceutical Limited is a Company which is promoted by Mr. Khanna and Mr. Puri. I am the authorized representative on behalf of both the entities to make a statement before this Court.
I tender herewith the original letters of Authority issued to me by Shri Manohar Lal Khanna on behalf of both the entities. I have been associated with both the entities as a Chartered Accountant for the last 17 years. I am aware of the business being conducted by the said Defendants.
On behalf of both the entities, I state that we undertake not to use the mark `COMFLAM', `COMFLAM+', `CONIFLAM' or any other mark which is identical or similar to the Plaintiff's mark `COMBIFLAM' for pharmaceutical preparations.
The Company-M/s Sunny Drugs & Pharmaceutical Limited is the registered proprietor of the mark `COMFLAM' bearing Registration No. 1052537, dated 17th October, 2001 in Class 5 with claimed user from 1st April, 1997.
On behalf of the said entity, I am willing to make the statement that the Company is willing to surrender the said registration. I undertake to file the request for cancellation/surrender of the said trademark with the Trademark Registry within four weeks from today.
I also make a statement on behalf of both the entities that the said entities shall not use the said mark `COMFLAM, COMBIFLAM' or any other mark which is similar for pharmaceutical preparations. The said entities have no objections if the suit is decreed for permanent injunction. The Defendants shall henceforth use the mark `CETFLAM' for pharmaceutical preparations.
On behalf of the Defendants, I also undertake to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-within a period of three months.
On behalf of M/s Sunny Drugs & Pharmaceutical Limited I also undertake to withdraw the trademark application No. 1030518 in Class 5 dated 26th July, 2001, which claimed user since 9th April, 2001 for the mark `CONIFLAM' which has been reflected in the name of Mr. Y. P Chail, who is the ex-director of M/s Sunny Drugs & Pharmaceutical Limited."
7. In view of the said statement, the following directions are issued:
i) The Defendants and all others acting for or on their behalf shall stand restrained by a decree of permanent injunction from using the
The court upheld the protection of trademarks and issued a permanent injunction against the Defendants for trademark infringement.
Registered trademarks are protected against similar marks that may cause consumer confusion, justifying injunctions for infringement and passing off.
Trademark infringement and passing off established due to deceptive similarity in marks.
Plaintiff entitled to a permanent injunction against the Defendants for trademark infringement and passing off due to the similarity in marks and packaging.
Court ruled that habitual infringement of trademarks in pharmaceuticals demands strict judicial action, including severe penalties and compliance oversight.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the protection of well-known trademarks and prevention of confusion in the market, as provided under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Point of Law : The use of the mark “CINZITAS” would also create confusion, as there was a possibility of people mistaking the defendants’ product to be that of the plaintiff.
The central legal point established is the protection of registered trademarks and the grant of permanent injunction against trademark infringement.
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.