The averments in the plaint are as follows:

1.1. The plaintiff is carrying on business as manufacturer of medicinal preparation for human consumption and claims that it enjoys a very high reputation for its medicinal preparations on account of excellent quality and efficacy and its preparations are sold extensively all over the country on an extensive scale. The plaintiff would state that it is a No.1 company in India in specialty therapy areas like psychiatry, neurology, cardiology and among the top 3 companies in a total of 7 therapy areas and it is also well known in the area of psychiatry therapy, wherein the plaintiff manufactures medicines for treatment of major depressive, generalize anxiety, social anxiety, panic disorders and various disorders requiring antidepressant medicines and is having large research and development facilities all over the world including India and making constant endeavours in coming out with new and improved preparations for better treatment of depressive disorders.

1.2. The plaintiff would further aver that in or about August 2000, the plaintiff adopted the trademark VENIZ in respect of pharmaceutical preparations for treatment of depressive disorders and other psychotic disorders and the said pharmaceutical preparation has been extensively used in medicinal and pharmaceutical products for treatment of major depressive disorders and other psychotic disorders since 2000 and are extensively renowned throughout the market and amongst practitioner for the quality and efficacy of their products and thereby, the plaintiff has garnered an enviable reputation among psychiatrist and the brand recognition among practitioners and users of such drugs is irrefutable throughout the country.

1.3. It is stated by the plaintiff that during October 2000, it applied to the Drug Controller for permission to manufacture Venlafaxine Extended Release (XR) Capsule for treatment of major depression disorders under the trademark “VENIZ”. The Drug Control Administration, on 21.10.2000, had granted permission to the plaintiff for manufacturing Venlafaxine capsules and thereafter, it commenced the manufacture of medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations under the trademark “VENIZ XR” for 37.5mg and 75mg, which are sold in strips in varying strengths from November, 2000. The plaintiff, subsequently, acquired drug licence dated 21.11.2003 for manufacture of medicinal preparations under the trademark “VENIZ XR” for 150mg and thus it is manufacturing and marketing medicinal preparations under the mark “VENIZ” in varying strengths of 37.5mg, 75mg and 150mg.

1.4. The plaintiff claims that it is the registered proprietor of the mark “VENIZ XR” under Reg.No.949364 dated 22.08.2000 in respect of medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations and substances included in Class 5 and the registration contains the condition and limitation that the trademark “VENIZ XR” shall give no right to the exclusive use of the word XR as terminologies such as XR, OD, SR etc., refer to characteristics and/or timed release and/or dosage of the drug such as Extended Release (XR) and therefore, exclusive proprietary right of the plaintiff is restricted to the trademark “VENIZ” and its application are also pending for class 5 for the mark “D-VENIZ” for medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations. The plaintiff would further state that it had spent huge amount for marketing its preparations under the trademark “VENIZ” through advertisements, by circulation of trade literature, pamphlets, product manuals, visual aid etc., and its medicinal preparation under the said mark “VENIZ” have already been well received in the pharmaceutical trade and in para 9 of the plaint, it shows the year-wise tabulation of amounts incurred towards sales promotion.

1.5. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that during August 2009, it came across the defendants preparation bearing the mark “VENZ-OD” and such an adoption by the defendants is deceptively similar as that of th