JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J.

I.A. 2177/2024 (under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC)

1. This application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) filed as part of the accompanying suit by which the plaintiff seeks a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants and all those acting for, and on their behalf, from manufacturing, selling, promoting their pharmaceutical product under the impugned trademark ‘ALSITA’ or any other mark which is identical or deceptively similar to plaintiff’s trademark ‘ALRISTA’ and other attendant relief under inter alia Sections 27 and 29 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2. Plaintiff and defendant No.1 are both Indian incorporated companies with their registered office in Mumbai. Both companies are engaged in the manufacturing and selling of pharmaceutical products. While the plaintiff uses the brand ‘ALRISTA’ for formulation containing ‘EPALRESTAT’, the defendant uses the mark ‘ALSITA’ for formulation comprising ‘SITAGLIPTIN’. ‘EPALRESTAT’ is used in the treatment of symptoms like burning pain and numbness seen in people with diabetic nerve disease (neuropathy),