SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Del) 857

2025 DHC 1585
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Bansal, J.
Johnson & Johnson - Plaintiff
Versus
Pritamdas Arora T/A M/S Medserve & Anr. - Defendants
CS(COMM) 570 of 2019 with I.A. 3678 of 2021, I.A. 3700 of 2021 and I.A. 12068 of 2022
Decided On : 11-03-2025
Advocates Appeared :
For the Plaintiff : Ms. Nancy Roy, Mr. Raghav Malik, Ms. Prakirti Varshney and Mr. Prashant, Advocates.

Advocates:
Ms. Nancy Roy, Mr. Raghav Malik, Ms. Prakirti Varshney and Mr. Prashant

The court established that the sale of counterfeit medical devices constitutes a grave offense endangering public health, warranting both compensatory and exemplary damages.

Headnote:

(A) Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 135 and 136 - Permanent injunction sought against defendants for trademark infringement and passing off of counterfeit products - Plaintiff established proprietary rights over trademarks ‘SURGICEL’, ‘ETHICON’, and ‘LIGACLIP’ through extensive use and registration - Evidence showed defendants sold counterfeit medical products, posing risks to public health - Court emphasized the gravity of counterfeiting in medical devices and awarded damages. (Paras 47, 76, 91)

(B) Injunction - The court granted a permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from using the plaintiff’s trademarks and ordered the destruction of counterfeit goods. (Paras 91, 92)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, an established company, filed suit against the defendants for infringing its trademarks by selling counterfeit surgical products, which were found to be non-sterile and potentially harmful. (Paras 1-19)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the defendants engaged in counterfeiting activities, which included selling contaminated products and falsifying expiration dates, thereby endangering public health. (Paras 76, 80)

Issues: The main issues included the infringement of trademarks, the legitimacy of the defendants' activities, and the appropriate remedies for the plaintiff. (Paras 1, 91)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the defendants’ actions constituted clear trademark infringement and posed a severe risk to public health, warranting both compensatory and exemplary damages. (Paras 76, 86)

Result: Permanent injunction granted; compensatory damages of ₹2,34,82,986/- and exemplary damages of ₹1,00,00,000/- awarded to the plaintiff.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT BANSAL, J.

1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the trade mark, selling counterfeits, and passing off along with other ancillary reliefs.

CASE SETUP IN THE PLAINT

2. Plaintiff [Johnson and Johnson], a company organised and existing under the laws of New Jersey, United States of America, is engaged in manufacturing consumer healthcare products, medical devices and pharmaceutical products. It is stated that the plaintiff has more than two hundred thirty (230) subsidiaries and employs more than one lakh thirty thousand (1,30,000) employees with presence in over sixty (60) countries.

3. Plaintiff’s business is diversified into three segments, namely, consumer healthcare products, pharmaceuticals, and medical devices. In 1949, the plaintiff acquired ‘Ethicon Suture Laboratories’, later renamed to ‘Ethicon Inc’ which manufactures inter-alia, surgical sutures, bleeding management and wound-closing devices.

4. Plaintiff, through its subsidiary Ethicon, manufactures medical devices used for bleeding management and sells them under the trade marks ‘SURGICEL’ and ‘ETHICON’.

5. The plaintiff coined the term ‘SURGICEL’ in 1957 in relation to a sterile absorbable knitted fabric hemostat. In 1960, the plaintiff introduced first oxidized regenerated cellulose hemostat under the trade mark ‘SURGICEL’ for controlling bleeding in certain critical surgical procedures. The plaintiff has been using the ‘SURGICEL’ marks in respect of its products in India since the 1990s.

6. The products sold under the ‘SURGICEL’ marks are manufactured in the plaintiff’s state-of-the-art facilities, which have quality control, specialised equipment and consistent processes which make the products reliable for surgeons.

7. In addition to the marks, the plaintiff has also adopted a unique trade dress to distinguish its ‘SURGICEL’ branded products. Through extensive use, the trade dress is exclusively and closely associated by consumers with the plaintiff.

8. The mark ‘ETHICON’ is the house mark of the plaintiff, which is used by the plaintiff on its products packaging, as shown below:

9. Plaintiff has also obtained trade mark registrations for its marks ‘SURGICEL’ and ‘ETHICON’, in multiple jurisdictions including India. The first trade mark registration for the mark ‘SURGICEL’ was obtained by the plaintiff on 3rd March, 1958. The aforesaid registration certificate obtained by the plaintiff has been exhibited as Exhibit PW 1/5. The details of the registration obtained by the plaintiff in India for its ‘SURGICEL’ marks have been exhibited as Exhibit PW 1/7 (colly) and Exhibit PW 1/8, and the same is reproduced below:

Trade MarkReg. No.Reg. DateClass
SURGICEL229424002.03.20125
SURGICEL SNOW196638917.05.20105
SURGICEL361952524.08.201710

10. The plaintiff, through its subsidiary, has also obtained registration for its mark ‘ETHICON’ and its formative marks across multiple jurisdictions including India. The details of the registration obtained by the plaintiff in India for its ‘ETHICON’ marks have been exhibited as Exhibit PW 1/9 (colly), and the same is reproduced below:

Trade MarkReg. No.Reg. DateClass
ETHICON240571004.10.201210
ETHICON16885702.05.19855
ETHICON26130916.12.19695
ETHICON EVITHROM155913316.05.20075
ETHICON OMNEX249115307.03.20135
ETHICON PDS41025706.09.198310

ETHICON ENDO- SURGERY

194772108.04.201010
ETHICON PHYSIOMESH279805926.08.201410

11. It is stated that the products sold under the plaintiff’s marks ‘SURGICEL’, ‘LIGAGLIP’ and ‘ETHICON’ are renowned and the same is evidenced from the revenue generated by these products over the years. The details of the revenue generated by plaintiff’s products sold under the marks ‘SURGICEL’, ‘LIGAGLIP’ and ‘ETHICON’ have been exhibited as Exhibit PW 1/11.

12. In 2019, a neurosurgeon at the University of Kentucky Medical Center, United States of America (hereinafter referred to as ‘University of Kentucky’), observed certain irregularit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top