Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, AMIT BANSAL
Nutrica Pusti Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Morepen Laboratories Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction to the appeal and procedural history (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. key arguments regarding the similarity of trade marks (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court analysis of relevant legal standards (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court’s reasoning on evidence and arguments presented (Para 12 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. finding of similarity and implications for trade mark rights (Para 24 , 26 , 28) |
| 6. final conclusion and order of dismissal (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
JUDGMENT
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. This appeal, under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) read with Section 13 (1A) of the COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT , 2015, impugns the order (dated 6th January, 2021 of the Commercial Court-02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS (COMM) No.245/2020 filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the appellants/defendants) allowing the application of the respondent/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2 of the CPC, in a suit for permanent injunction for restraining infringement of trade marks and passing off and ancillary reliefs, and restraining the appellants/defendants from using the subject trade marks.
2. This appeal came up first before thi
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
