Back
1984 Supreme(Online)(Del) 4
DELHI HIGH COURT
, J
Glaxo Operations Uk Ltd. Middlesex (England) and Others v. Samrat Pharmaceuticals Kanpur
Civil Suit No. 1596/82
Territorial jurisdiction established for copyright infringement claims; protection against passing off requires a demonstration of deceptive similarity of packaging.
Headnote:(A) Trade Marks Act, 1958, Copyright Act, 1957 - Jurisdiction - Territorial jurisdiction clarified based on plaintiff's business locations - Relief sought included injunction against infringement of trademark and copyright. (Paras 7, 9, 10)
(B) Mark of passing off - Deceptively similar cartons leading to consumer confusion about product origin established - Balance of convenience favors plaintiffs - Irreparable harm anticipated if relief denied. (Paras 14, 24)
Facts of the case:
This suit was filed for a perpetual injunction against the defendant for infringement of the registered trade marks and copyrights related to Glaxose-D and Glucon-D, based on allegations of deceptive similarity in product packaging. The plaintiffs also sought a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant's activities until the suit is resolved.
Findings of Court:
The plaintiffs have established prima facie evidence of infringement of trade marks and copyrights based on similarities in packaging, warranting the granting of the injunction, as no significant prejudice to the defendant was found.
Issues: Key issues addressed included the territorial jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit based on the plaintiffs' claim of business presence in Delhi and whether the defendant's use of similar packaging constitutes passing off.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that local office presence suffices for jurisdiction under the Copyright Act, affirming protection against deceptive product representations to maintain market integrity.
Result: Application allowed, injunction granted pending suit resolution.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishment of trade mark rights through registration. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. similarity of packaging constitutes a risk of consumer confusion. (Para 4 , 14) |
| 3. jurisdiction based on place where business is conducted. (Para 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. balance of convenience favors plaintiffs in cases of potential harm. (Para 18 , 24) |
1. Both these applications (L. As. 4538/82 and 664/83) are connected with the same suit No. 1596/82. The suit is for issue of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, its servants and agents from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing with Glucose powder or any other medicinal or food preparation in cartons as are a substantial reproduction of or colourable imitation of the cartons of the product Glaxose - D and / or Glucon - D and from adopting an identical or deceptively similar colour combination, lay - out, get - up and arrangement of features as described in the plaint. In the suit it is also prayed by the plaintiffs that an order for rendition of accounts of profits illegally earned by the defendants by infringing the trade marks, copy rights and by way of passing off its goods and business as the goods and business of the plaintiff be made. They further pray for issue of a direction for delivery for the purpose of destruction of all the impugned material including the infringing copies of the cartons, labels, wrapping and packing materials etc.
2. Plaintiff No. 1 i.e. Glaxo Operations UK Ltd. is a company incorporated under the provisions of the English Law having its office at Greenford Road, Greenford, Middlesex, England. Plaintiff No. 2 i.e. Glaxo Laboratories (India) Limited is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, carrying on its business at registered office at Dr. Annie Besant Road, Bombay - 400025 and local office at Mathura Road, New Delhi. The plaintiffs have been, for the last several years, manufacturing and selling throughout India various well - known pharmaceutical and medical food and chemical preparations. Plaintiff No. 1, as the case of the plaintiffs is, is the proprietor of various trade marks in India in respect of its product Glaxose - D and holds the registration in respect of the said trade mark under the provisions of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Trade Marks Act). The particulars of those registered trade marks are as under:
3. According to tile plaintiffs, plaintiff No. 2 is the registered user of the various trade marks of plaintiff No. 1 and further plaintiff No. 2 has been manufacturing and selling Glaxose - D for almost four decades and the said plaintiff is the registered proprietor of trade mark Glucon - D registered at No. 305664, under the Track Marks Act. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that plaintiff No. 2 is also the owner of various copy rights in respect of the cartons of Glaxose - D and / or Glucon - D. According to them, the plaintiffs got the copyright registered under the provisions of Copyrights Act, 1957, as per particulars given below:
4. It is complained by the plaintiffs that in violation and infringement of the aforesaid trade mark and copyright, the defendant is selling its product Glucose - D in cartons having the various features including the lay - out, get - up, colour combination and arrangement of cartons of Glaxose - D and / or Glucon - D with a view to produce an impact on the public that the products of the plaintiffs are being sold and is thus causing deception so as to encash upon the reputation of the plaintiffs and to pass inferior products as those of the plaintiffs. It is asserted by the plaintiffs that they have built up reputation of their aforesaid product by way of huge expenses on advertisement and giving good quality and that, therefore, they are suffering damages and set back in their sale.
5. I. A. 4538/82 was filed along with the suit. The same is for issue of a temporary injuncti
