Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
P. Thangavel, J.
USV Limited - Appellants
Vs.
IPCA Laboratories Limited - Respondent
Appln. No. 230 of 2002 in C.S. No. 234 of 2002
Decided On : 26-06-2002
Trade Mark Infringement - Medicinal Preparations - Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules - Civil Procedure Code - Ad-interim injunction granted to restrain respondent from using trade mark PIOZED - [PIOZED] - Trade Mark Infringement - Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules - Civil Procedure Code - Ad-interim injunction granted to restrain respondent from using trade mark PIOZED - [PIOZED] - Summary: The applicant sought an ad-interim injunction to restrain the respondent from using the trade mark PIOZED, which was deceptively similar to the applicant's trade mark PIOZ. The applicant had a high reputation and goodwill in the pharmaceutical business and had spent a substantial amount on advertisement and promotional expenses for the trade mark PIOZ. The respondent resisted the claim, arguing that the trade mark PIOZED was not deceptively similar and that the applicant's conduct was mala fide. The court found that the trade mark PIOZED was deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion, and granted the ad-interim injunction in favor of the applicant. The court also considered the balance of convenience and held that it favored the applicant. The court rejected the respondent's arguments of delay, laches, and acquiescence, and held that the applicant was entitled to the ad-interim injunction. The judgment was in favor of the applicant.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought an ad-interim injunction to restrain the respondent from using the trade mark PIOZED, which was deceptively similar to the applicant's trade mark PIOZ. The applicant had a high reputation and goodwill in the pharmaceutical business and had spent a substantial amount on advertisement and promotional expenses for the trade mark PIOZ. The respondent resisted the claim, arguing that the trade mark PIOZED was not deceptively similar and that the applicant's conduct was mala fide.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trade mark PIOZED was deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion, and granted the ad-interim injunction in favor of the applicant. The court also considered the balance of convenience and held that it favored the applicant. The court rejected the respondent's arguments of delay, laches, and acquiescence, and held that the applicant was entitled to the ad-interim injunction.
Issues: The main issues were the similarity between the trade marks PIOZ and PIOZED, the balance of convenience, and the respondent's arguments of delay, laches, and acquiescence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trade mark PIOZED was deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion, and granted the ad-interim injunction in favor of the applicant. The court also considered the balance of convenience and held that it favored the applicant. The court rejected the respondent's arguments of delay, laches, and acquiescence, and held that the applicant was entitled to the ad-interim injunction.
Final Decision: The judgment was in favor of the applicant, granting the ad-interim injunction to restrain the respondent from using the trade mark PIOZED.
JUDGMENT :
P. Thangavel, J.
1. This is an application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, and Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code to grant ad-interim injunction restraining the respondent and its distributors, stockists, servants, agents, retailers and representatives from in any manner manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, stocking, advertising or dealing directly or indirectly in medicinal preparations under the trade mark PIOZED or any other trade mark which is identical with and/or deceptively similar to the trade mark PIOZ of the applicant so as to pass off the respondent's preparations as and for the preparations of the applicant or in any other manner whatsoever connected with the applicant till the disposal of the suit.
2. The applicant is the plaintiff and has filed the suit against the respondent, who is the defendant for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent from passing off their medicinal preparations under the trade mark PIOZED as and for the applicant's medicinal preparations having the trade mark PIOZ and for other consequential relief. The applicant is carrying on the business as manufacturer and dealer of pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations and enjoys high reputation and goodwill because of the excellent quality and efficacy in preparation of the medicine. The turnover of the applicant company for 2000-2001 was more than Rs. 297/- crores. The medicine manufactured by the applicant company is not only sold in this country, but exported to many foreign countries also. The applicant is having large Research and Development facilities. The trademark of the applicant is PIOZ in respect of their PIOGLITAZONE preparation for the treatment of diabetes. The applicant got search report on 28.7.2000 and also another report on 25.10.2000 about the availability of trademark PIOZ through its Attorney for registration and thereafter distributed ADIB Internationals Reprints booklet amongst the Doctors all over India advertising therein its trademark PIOZ in November, 2000. The applicant applied for permission to manufacture the drugs PIOGLITAZONE HYDROCHLORIDE in Tablets form containing 15 mg and 30 mg to the Drugs Controller General (India), New Delhi, in November, 2000. On 18.12.2000 an application was made for registration of the trade mark PIOZ by the applicant with the Trade Marks Registry and it was numbered as 9,77,709 and the application is pending for registration. The Drugs Controller General (India), New Delhi granted permission for manufacture of the said tablets by its letter dated 11.1.2001. Permission was granted to the applicant for manufacture of PIOZ tablets by the Food and Drug Administration on 16.1.2001 on application made by the applicant company. The applicant placed orders for supply of foil and carton bearing the trade marks PIOZ in January, 2001, After getting the permission from the Drugs Controller General (India), New Delhi and licence from Food and Drug Administration, the applicant company has started manufacturing of the medicine in tablets under the trade mark PIOZ in strips and made it available for sale in market. The sale of the tablets prepared under the trade mark PIOZ during February, 2001 to January, 2002 was Rs. 5,98,35,000/-. The applicant has spent Rs. 1,17,97,000/- towards advertisement and promotional expenses relating to the trade mark PIOZ for a period from August, 2000 to January, 2002. The applicant came across the preparation of some medicine in a pack of 15 mg and 30 mg as that of the applicant for the same disease and ailment having the trade mark PIOZED in August, 2001 and marketed in March, 2002. The respondent was fully aware of the manufacturing of the above said tablets by the applicant and marketed in or about January, 2001 throughout India under the trade mark PIOZ. The respondent has no right to use deceptively similar trade mark PIOZED in manufacturing and marketing of such medicine while suc
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
