Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
PRATHIBA M.SINGH
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited – Appellant
Versus
Nava Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from use of the mark `Blofin-D3 Max' along with the trade dress and packaging, stated to be identical to the Plaintiff's trademark `Bio-D3', `Bio-D3 Max' `Bio-D3 Fem'/trade dress/layout/packaging/copyright/etc., as also for reliefs for passing off, unfair competition, misrepresentation, dilution, damages, rendition of accounts, etc. The said marks are used by the Plaintiff for multivitamin and calcium pharmaceutical preparations. The Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the said marks which have been in existence since 1998, with `BIO D3 MAX' being registered in 2009. The Plaintiff has also adopted a unique colour combination and design incorporating vaarious distinguishing features on the trade dress, such as a pictorial representation of a spinal cord and a leaf, combined together in the form of a butterfly. The annual turnover of the Plaintiff is stated to be around Rs.160 crores each, in 2019-20 and 2020-21.
3. The case of the Plaintiff is that the Defendants are using the ma
Plaintiff entitled to a permanent injunction against the Defendants for trademark infringement and passing off due to the similarity in marks and packaging.
The court upheld the protection of trademarks and issued a permanent injunction against the Defendants for trademark infringement.
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.
The court affirmed that copyright infringement requires substantial similarity in product packaging which may mislead consumers, justifying injunctive relief to protect trademark integrity.
Merely riding on strength of his trade mark registration, is indulging in conduct which is not transparent.
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.
A plaintiff cannot file multiple suits for the same cause of action concurrently in different jurisdictions; it constitutes forum shopping and is impermissible under Order II Rule 2 CPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a fresh cause of action does not justify filing a new suit when the matter is part-heard before another court. The judgment also highlighted t....
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
