Trademark law recognizes the importance of avoiding consumer confusion between similar marks, especially in pharmaceuticals, while encouraging mediation to resolve disputes.

ORDER

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

I.A. 4666/2022 (seeking leave to file additional documents)

2. This is an application seeking leave to file additional documents under the Commercial Courts, 2015. The Plaintiff, if it wishes to file additional documents at a later stage, shall do so strictly as per the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

3. I.A. 4666/2022 is disposed of.

I.A. 4667/2022 (for exemption)

4. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. I.A. 4667/2022 is disposed of.

I.A. 4670/2022 (exemption from filing apostilled power of attorney)

5. This is an application seeking exemption from filing apostilled power of attorney.

6. I.A. 4670/2022 is allowed. Let the same be filed in four weeks.

CS(COMM) 182/2022

7. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.

8. Issue summons to the Defendants through all modes upon filing of Process Fee. Mr. D. Bhattacharyya, ld. Counsel for the Defendants accepts notice.

9. The summons to the Defendants shall indicate that a written statement to the plaint shall be positively filed within 30 days from date of receipt of summons. Along with the written statement, the Defendants shall also file an affidavit of admission/denial of the documents of the Plaintiff, without which the written statement shall not be taken on record.

10. Liberty is given to the Plaintiff to file a replication within 15 days of the receipt of the written statement(s). Along with the replication, if any, filed by the Plaintiff, an affidavit of admission/denial of documents of the Defendants, be filed by the Plaintiff, without which the replication shall not be taken on record. If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same shall be sought and given within the timelines.

11. List before the Joint Registrar for marking of exhibits on 13th May, 2022. It is made clear that any party unjustifiably denying documents would be liable to be burdened with costs.

12. List before Court on 4th August, 2022.

I.A. 4665/2022 (stay) & I.A. 4668/2022 (seeking recall of infringing products)

13. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining trademark infringement, passing-off and other reliefs in respect of its trademark `BETNESOL' in relation to its medicinal product which uses the active ingredient `Betamethasone'. The case of the Plaintiff is that it adopted the mark `BETNESOL' in 1960 and the mark has been in use since then continuously and extensively.

14. The grievance of the Plaintiff is that the Defendant has adopted the mark `BETSONE' which according to the Plaintiff is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's mark `BETNESOL' and likely to be confused with the Plaintiff's product. Further, the product of the Defendant with the mark `BETSONE' also uses the same active ingredient `Betamethasone'. Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff further submits that Defendants were well aware of the Plaintiff's mark and despite having been put to notice, the Defendants did not agree to change the said mark. Hence this suit.

15. Mr. Rao, ld. Sr. counsel appearing for the Defendants on the other hand submits that in the first place, this is not a case where Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 ought to be given a go by and the Plaintiff ought to have resorted to compulsory pre-litigation mediation considering the fact that the legal notice was issued by the Plaintiff which was replied to by the Defendants. He further submits that `BETSONE' has been in use since the last 20 years including the use by Defendant's predecessor an