JUDGMENT :

1. The present Suit is instituted for infringement of trade mark combined with a cause of action of passing off. The Plaintiff in the present Suit is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at the address mentioned in the cause title of the Plaint. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to restrict the Defendants from infringing the Plaintiff’s registered trade mark “CEDON” and from using the trade mark “CEFDON” (“the impugned mark”) to pass off the Defendants’ goods as and for those of the Plaintiff.

2. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the impugned mark is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s registered trade mark “CEDON”, and that both the marks are used in relation to the same goods, i.e., cough syrup, both being medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations and other like goods.

3. By an Order dated 27th January 2015, this Court granted the Plaintiff (i) leave under clause XIV of the Letters Patent, (ii) dismissed the Defendants' application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1980 (CPC), and (iii) ad interim relief in terms of prayer (a) and (b) of Notice of Motion No. 392 of 2015 . The Defendants did not challenge the Order dated 27th January 2015, and thus the same attained finality.

4. Since, despite service of the Writ of Summons on both the Defendants, did not file any Written Statement the Suit was transferred to the list of undefended Suits. Accordingly, the Suit was taken up for hearing on 4th December 2025, under the caption For Final Hearing.

Submissions on behalf of the Plaintiff

5. Mr. Bhagat, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff submitted the Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trade mark “CEDON” under registration No. 714042 dated 14th August 1996, which registration was valid and subsisting at all times. He then submitted that the Plaintiff coined and adopted the word "CEDON" in 2004 and that the Plaintiff has at all times since the year 2004 been continuously using “CEDON”, as its trade mark in relation to its dry cough syrup all over India and

had carved out a niche for itself in the pharmaceutical industry by its distinctive products. He then submitted that the Plaintiff had done enormous business under the trade mark “CEDON”, and the said mark had become distinctive of the Plaintiff’s products, and thus valuable common law rights had accrued in favour of the Plaintiff.

6. Mr. Bhagat then submitted that in August 2014, the Plaintiff discovered that Defendant No.1 was using the mark “CEFDON” (“the impugned mark”) in respect of its antibacterial dry syrup used to treat cough (“impugned product”). The impugned product bearing the impugned mark was being manufactured by one Origin Formulations Pvt. Ltd, Uttarakhand for Defendant No.1. It was thus that he submitted that the Plaintiff had, on 18th August 2014, issued a cease and desist notice to the Defendant No.1 and to its then manufacturer, i.e., Origin Formulations Pvt. Ltd., asking them to refrain from using the impugned mark “CEFDON” for the manufacture of a similar product. The cease and desist notice mentioned that the impugned mark used by the Defendants was almost identical/confusingly similar to the Plaintiff's registered trade mark “CEDON”. Whilst the Defendant No.1, despite receipt of the said notice, refused to stop using the impugned mark “CEDON”, Origin Formulations Pvt. Ltd. informed the Plaintiff that it was manufacturing the said medicinal preparation bearing the impugned mark for and on behalf of the Defendant No.1 and agreed that it shall stop manufacturing the said medicinal preparation bearing the impugned mark “CEFDON”.

7. On 18th November 2014, the Plaintiff came across Defendant No.1’s impugned product bearing the impugned mark “CEFDON” being sold in the markets of Warangal District in Telangana and accordingly procured Defendant No.1’s impugned product bearing the impugned mark “CEFDON” from a retailer. Upon reviewing the impugned produ