CS(COMM) 592/2023

Page 1 of 13

$~48

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CS(COMM) 592/2023 & I.A. 16219/2023

MEDICOVER HOLDING (CYPRUS) LIMITED & ORS.

..... Plaintiffs

Through:

Mr. Pravin Anand, Ms. Tusha

Malhotra and Ms. Yamini Jaswal, Advs.

versus

MEDICOVER HOSPITAL AND HEALTH CARE CENTRE &

ANR.

..... Defendants

Through:

None

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

J U D G M E N T (O R A L)

%

26.09.2023

I.A. 16219/2023 in CS(COMM) 592/2023

1.

Keeping in mind para 8 of the order passed by the Division

Bench of this Court in Dabur India Ltd. v. Emami Ltd.¹, I had, while

issuing summons in the present suit on 28 August 2023, demurred

from passing any injunctive orders in the present application,

preferred by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC), and had, instead, issued notice

on the application so that the defendants would have an opportunity to

respond.

1 Order dated 21 August 2023 in FAO(OS) (COMM) 171/2023

Digitally Signed

By:HARIOM

Signing Date:05.10.2023

11:37:48

Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 592/2023

Page 2 of 13

2.

There was no appearance from the defendants on the last date of

hearing i.e., 21 September 2023, though the defendants stood served

by e-mail and WhatsApp.

3.

In order to do complete justice, I had directed fresh service on

the defendants by courier through Blue Dart. The service has been

effected. An affidavit of service has been placed on record along with

a tracking report of the Blue Dart agency, which shows that delivery

of the papers relating to the present case on the date has also taken

place.

4.

Despite this, there is no appearance on behalf of the defendants.

As already noted, there is no response, either, to the present

application whereby the plaintiffs seek interlocutory injunctive relief.

5.

In the circumstances, I have heard Mr. Pravin Anand, learned

Counsel for the plaintiff and perused the material on record.

6.

The Plaintiff 1 is a company incorporated under the laws of

Cyprus in 2006 and is a member of the Medicover group of

companies. The Medicover group is stated to have two entities in

India, namely, Plaintiff 2 Medicover Healthcare Private Limited and

Plaintiff 3 Sahrudaya Health Care Private Limited.

7.

Plaintiff 3 operates a hospital and Plaintiff 2 operates medical

clinics. Plaintiff 1 conducts its business activities through Plaintiffs 2

and 3.

Digitally Signed

By:HARIOM

Signing Date:05.10.2023

11:37:48

Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 592/2023

Page 3 of 13

8.

Plaintiff 1 is the registered proprietor of the following marks

across country:

Registration

No.

Mark

Application

Date

Class

User

Claim

4232337

11/07/2019

35,36,

39,42,

43,44

01/01/2016

4232338

11/07/2019

35,36,

39,42,

43,44

01/01/2016

3151491

MEDICOVER 05/01/2016

36,44

3151491 3151492

05/01/2016

36,44

3151492 4205553

13/06/2019

36,42,

44 01/01/2016

4205554

13/06/2019

36,42,

44 01/01/2016

4205555

13/06/2019

36,42,

44 01/01/2016

4205556

13/06/2019

36,42,

44 01/01/2016

4205504

13/06/2019

36,42,

44 01/01/2016

4205505

13/06/2019

36,42,

44 01/01/2016

4205506

13/06/2019

36,42,

44 01/01/2016

4199151

06/06/2019

36,42,

44 01/01/2016

9.

License to use the aforesaid marks has been granted by Plaintiff

1 to Plaintiffs 2 and 3. The licence agreement has also been placed on

record.

10.

Under the aforesaid marks, the Medicover Group provides a

Digitally Signed

By:HARIOM

Signing Date:05.10.2023

11:37:48

Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 592/2023

Page 4 of 13

broad spectrum of healthcare services, through an extensive network

of ambulatory clinics, hospitals, specialty care facilities and

laboratory. The plaintiffs are also operating fertility clinics.

11.

Apropos the services rendered by the plaintiffs, the plaint avers

that the services may be distributed into three categories, namely,

health