Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
PRATHIBA M.SINGH
Sanofi India Limited – Appellant
Versus
Ridley Life Science Private Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. defendant's non-compliance with injunction. (Para 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. plaintiff's evidence of habitual infringement. (Para 3 , 6 , 10) |
| 3. recognition of trademark rights and history of marks. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 12) |
| 4. strict action required against habitual infringers. (Para 11 , 14 , 18) |
| 5. court's directive for financial penalty and compliance. (Para 15 , 16 , 20 , 22) |
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 Cour
Court ruled that habitual infringement of trademarks in pharmaceuticals demands strict judicial action, including severe penalties and compliance oversight.
The application of the deceptive similarity test in trademark cases requires heightened scrutiny when the defendant is an ex-employee of the plaintiff, emphasizing the burden to eliminate any dishone....
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 court reinforced that established trademarks warrant protection against similar marks to prevent market confusion, particularly in the pharmaceutical sector, applying principles against passing o....
The burden of proof on an ex-employee defendant in a trade mark infringement case and the relevance of uncontroverted evidence, such as the Court Commissioner's report, in establishing deceptive simi....
The judgment establishes the principle that violation of injunction orders and patent infringement can lead to contempt of court under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC.
The court granted a permanent injunction against defendants for using a deceptively similar trademark, affirming the plaintiff's established rights over their well-known trademarks.
[The court established that in cases involving medicinal products, the threshold for proving deceptive similarity is lower due to the potential health risks associated with consumer confusion. The co....
Court emphasizes that prior use and goodwill in trade names give rise to rights that protect against passing off and copyright infringement.
A court will grant an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in a trademark infringement and passing-off suit where the plaintiff establishes a long-standing reputation, a prima facie case of deceptive simil....
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
