Court ruled that habitual infringement of trademarks in pharmaceuticals demands strict judicial action, including severe penalties and compliance oversight.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

I.A. 2195/2022(u/O XXXIX Rule 2A CPC)

2. The present application has been moved by the Plaintiff on the ground that the injuncted products `CONCIFLAM' and `CORIFLAM', are being sold by the Defendant, despite the injunction order passed on 31st May, 2021.

3. On the last date of hearing i.e., 1st April, 2022, this Court had directed that the Directors of the Defendant-Company Mr. Rajesh Bansal and Rakesh Bansal, as also Mr. Ram Kumar Gautam, shall remain present in Court. The said order reads as under:

"2. This is an application filed on behalf of the Plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC. The grievance of the Plaintiff is that the Defendants are continuously violating the order dated 31st May, 2021 passed by this Court. By the said order, the Defendants were injuncted from using the mark `CONCIFLAM' and `CORIFLAM' and/or any other mark identical to or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered trademark `COMBIFLAM'.

3. Mr. Kalra, ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff submits that there are eleven orders which have been passed against this very Defendant-Ridley Life Science Pvt. Ltd., which is a habitual infringer of well-known marks relating to pharmaceutical preparations.

4. Keeping in mind the conduct of the Defendant- Company, the various orders which have been repeatedly passed against the Defendant-Company, as also the complete lack of deference shown by the Defendant-Company to the orders passed by this Court, it is directed that the Directors of the Defendant Company- Mr. Rajesh Bansal and Rakesh Bansal, as also the Factory Manager- Mr. Ram Kumar Gautam, shall remain present in Court, on the next date.

5. The Defendant shall place an affidavit on record, giving the complete sales figures and quantities, including the Batch No. of the products, which sold by the Defendant-Company of products under the impugned marks `CONCIFLAM' and `CORIFLAM' since adoption, within two weeks."

4. Pursuant to the above order, an affidavit dated 16th April, 2022 has been filed by Mr. Ram Kumar Gautam, Director of the Defendant-Company, giving details as to the manufacturing and sales. According to the data given by the Defendant, the last manufacturing of the products under the mark `CONCIFLAM' is claimed to be in June, 2018 and that of `CORIFLAM' is claimed to be in June, 2021. The total sales are to the tune of approximately Rs.40 lakhs and Rs.46 lakhs respectively. Reliance is also placed upon the reply to the present application to submit that the online sales are not being conducted with the consent of the Defendant. In fact, emails and letters have been addressed to all the online platforms, asking them to take down the concerned listings.

5. Mr. Tushar Rao, ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the Defendant submits that the data in respect of manufacturing and sales would show that the Defendant has not committed contempt and has, in fact, abided by the injunction order dated 31st May, 2021. Neither of the infringing products have been manufactured after the said injunction order was served upon the Defendant. Thus, he submits that though the order was of May, 2021, no products have been manufactured under the marks `CONCIFLAM' and `CORIFLAM', after June, 2021.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Kalra, ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff brings to the notice of this Court, various orders passed against this very Defendant i.e., Ridley Life Science Private Limited, wherein the Defendant has been found to be repeatedly violating and infringing the rights in several trademarks relating