Bangalore District Court
; 1. M/S. Biocon Limited vs ; 1. M/S Vhb Life Sciences Limited on 30 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF XVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE
AT BENGALURU CITY [CCH NO.10]
Dated this day the 30th April, 2015
PRESENT
SRI K.AMARANARAYANA., B.Com., LL.M.
XVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge.
O.S.No.4385/2010
Plaintiff ; 1. M/s. Biocon Limited,
A Company registered under the
Provisions of Companies Act-1956,
Having its office at;
20th K.M, Hosur Road,
Electronics City Post,
B A N G A L O R E - 560001.
Represented by its authorized signatory
Mr.Abhayan Jawaharlal.
[Rep.By.Sri.G.H/M.N.K. Adv for plaintiff]
--V/S--
Defendants ; 1. M/s VHB Life Sciences Limited,
No.40/B-2, Shankar Smruti,
Sir Balachandra Road,
Dadar (East), Mumbai - 400014,
Maharashtra, India.
--2-- O.S.No.4385/2010
2. M/s Dhanvanthri Pharmaceuticals,
No.1, 9th Cross, Park Area,
(Near Wilson Garden Club), Wilson Garden
B A N G A L O R E - 560027.
Karnataka, India.
[Rep.By.Sri.S.B.M. Adv for D - 1]
[Rep.By.Sri.K.V.R. Adv for D - 2]
Date of institution of suit ; 26.06.2010.
Nature of the suit [Pronote, ; Perpetual Injunction,
Suit for declaration and ; Render Accounts &
Possession, suit for Injunction Damages.
etc]
Date of the commencement ; 20.02.2014.
of recording of the evidence
Date on which the judgment ; 30.04.2015.
was pronounced.
Total Duration ; Year/s Month/s Day/s
04 10 04
(K.AMARANARAYANA)
XVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendants 1 and 2 prays to pass judgment and decree of Perpetual Injunction restraining the
--3-- O.S.No.4384/2010 defendants, their servants, agents, dealers and stockists from directly N E U F IL or indirectly in any manner from using the or any other mark N U F IL which deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trademark and N U F IL S A F E in relations to any medical or pharmaceuticals preparations so as to pass off or enable others to pass off the defendants goods as and for the goods of plaintiff, and to direct the defendants to render a true and faithful accounts of all the profits N E U F IL , earned by them by using the impugned mark further to direct the defendants to pay to the plaintiff such amount as may be found due, on such account being taken, along with interest @ 18% from the date of suit till the date of realization, Further to direct the defendants to deliver up for destruction to the plaintiff all the goods, dies, articles, literatures, cartons, labels, papers and things bearing NEUFIL the impugned mark and for costs.
2. Case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows;
a). The plaintiff is a premier Biotechnology Company established in the year 1978 and is an integrated Biopharmaceutical Company and is focused on biopharmaceuticals custom and clinical research and manufacturers and markets high
--4-- O.S.No.4385/2010 quality pharmaceutical products and medicines. The plaintiff is the first ISO 901 certified biotechnology company in India and possesses a state of the art research and manufacturing facility and consistent high quality results. They also won a plethora of awards and commendations in the field of biotechnology and they ranked first in Asia in terms of revenue and market capitalization and sixteenth globally. They serve customers in over 75 countries. They indigenously harvested and developed a biological product called Filgrastim. It is also known as Granulocyte colony stimulating factor (GCSF) is a naturally occurring hormone that is primarily responsible for profilteration of neutorphils or white blood cells. The biological product namely filgrastim was developed by the plaintiff by using recombinant DNA technology and after extensive research and development and they have spent Rs.3,01,18,650/- towards its development and marketing. They started to manufacture and market their medicinal preparation containing filgrastim for the treatment of neytropenia and aimed at neutrophil recovery.
N U F IL
b). The plaintiff coined and adopted the trademark for their medical preparation. The plaintiff applied for registration of the said mark before trademark registry on 16.7.2007. The plaintiff in N U F IL addition to their medical preparation containing filgrastim,
--5-- O.S.No.4385/2010 have also developed pre-filled syringes of filgrastim and started NU F IL manufacturing and marketing of the same under the trademark SA F E . The plaintiff has applied for registration of the trademark N U F IL SA F E on 14.3.2008. The plaintiffs are using the trademark N U F IL NUFIL SAFE and continuously, extensively and exclusively in relation to its products in India. On 9.9.2009 they have received letter from defendant wherein they came to be aware of the product called NEUFIL in the market. On enquiry, they learnt that the product, which contained filgrastim, was being exported from China by the first N E U F IL .
defendant and was being sold in India under the mark The N E U F IL first defendant adopted the in respect of products containing Filgrastim which is used for the treatment of the same ailments as that of the plaintiffs product and the said mark is deceptively similar to the N U F IL & N U F IL SA F E plaintiffs reputed trade mark . The plaintiff got issued desist and cease notice to the first defendant on 10.2.2009. The first defendant did not comply the terms of notice and did not give N EU FI L reply. The first defendant by using the impugned mark has passed off the goods as that of plaintiff. The first defendant is continuing to pass off the product and is enabling others to pass off its
--6-- O.S.No.4385/2010 products as that of plaintiff. The second defendant is stocking, selling, dispensing the products of first defendant and aiding and abating the first defendant in the said wrongful act. The use of the N E U F IL deceptively similar mark by the first defendant is likely to deceive or cause confusion. The first defendant is causing illegal activities of causing irreparable loss, immense damage to the goodwill, business and reputation of plaintiff. Hence, the suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants.
3. a). The defendants 1 and 2 appeared pursuant summons. The defendant No.1 filed written statement denying all the averments of plaint besides contending that the plaintiff filed the suit by suppressing material facts to mislead the court and without jurisdiction. The plaintiff had made its own agent as second defendant to obtain an exparte order. The plaintiff filed an application on 16.7.2007 before trademark registry to obtain trademark certificate. This defendant filed an application on 11.9.2006 before trademark registry to obtain trademark. The plaintiff has played fraud. This defendant had issued cease and desist notice to the plaintiff. The plaintiff anticipating the infringement action against the plaintiff instituted this suit by suppressing material facts. The first defendant company is in existence since 2007 at Mumbai and prior to its incor-
--7-- O.S.No.4385/2010 poration was carrying on the same business since 1946 in the name of V.H.Bhagat & Company. The first defendant is the manufacturer and importer of drugs. It has high reputation among the medical practitioners, trade and consuming public and its products are sold all over the country.
b). This defendant further contended that they are supplying life saving drugs to the Government and Non-Government agencies and have established great trust and goodwill in the market. They have donated life saving drugs worth rupees one crore to Government of Tamil Nadu during national calamities. The drugs used for treating N E U F IL cancer patients under the brand name . Flagrastim is a granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) analog used to stimulate the profilteration and differentiation of granulocytes. It is produced by recombinant DNA technology. They applied for N E U F IL registration of trademark on 11.9.2006 and immediately started the processing for applying the license and other mandatory documents for the import of the drug. They have spent several lakhs of rupees on advertising campaigns and promotion of the drug N E U F IL . N E U F IL The said drug has become one of the most N U F IL popular and fast selling drugs in the market. The name is
--8-- O.S.No.4385/2010 N E U F IL phonetically similar to the name belonging to the first NEUFIL defendant. The effectiveness of the drug has made it immensely popular and has earned for its tremendous goodwill and reputation. The first has also obtained approval from DCGI and other regulatory authorities which is a legal requirement. The plaintiff has N U F IL adopted the name that is deceptively similar to the first N E U F IL defendant's product with sole intention of riding piggyback on the first defendant's goodwill and reputation. First defendant N E U F IL received report that even the doctors prescribe the chemist N U F IL dispense while some of the chemists are under the impression N E U F IL N U F IL that and are one and the same and originate from N U F IL same company. The adoption of the name by the plaintiff has been malafide motive of cashing in on the reputation and goodwill of N E U F IL as well goodwill of the first defendant company. The public as well as people in the trade are deceived into believing that N E U F IL N U F IL and are one and the same or they are manufactured by first defendant. The possibility of deception and confusion is thus clear and present and in actual occurrence at various places. On the
--9-- O.S.No.4385/2010 above grounds prays to dismiss the suit. The defendant No.2 though appeared before the court have not filed any written statement and contested the suit.
4. Based on the above pleadings the predecessor in office framed the following issues;
1. Whether the plaintiff prove that the defendant are passing off its goods by using the trademark "N EU FI L "
which is deceptively similar to the "NUFIL" " N U F IL SA F E "
plaintiffs trademark and ?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought for?
3. To what decree or order?
5. The Plaintiff in order to prove its case got examined its Deputy Manager-Legal as PW1, got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P32 and closed its side. The defendant No.1 got examined its authorized representative as DW1, got marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D14 and closed its side. The second defendant has not adduced any evidence.
6. Heard the arguments on both sides. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has relied upon the following decisions.
--10-- O.S.No.4385/2010
1. MIPR 2009 (1) 0143 (Beiersdorf A.G -V/s- Ajay Sukhwani and another).
2. MANU/DE/0120/1999 (Yahoo Inc -V/s- Akash Aroroa).
3. AIR 2001 SC 1952 (Cadila Healthcare Limited
-V/s- Cadila Pharamaceuticals).
4. MANU/TN/3536//2009 (Sum Pharmaceutical Industries Limited -V/s- Cadila Healthcare and Zydus).
5. CS (OS) No.3534/2012 Delhi High Court (Abbott Healthcare Private Limited -V/s-
Rajkumar Prasad and others).
6. AIR 1999 Del 172 (Kishore Zarda Factory Ltd - V/s- JP Toabbaco House).
7. AIR 1999 Dell 102 (Senior Laboratories Ltd - V/s- Jagsonpal Pharamaceuticals).
The learned counsel appearing for the defendant No.2 has relied upon the decision reported in
1. 2014 (59) PTC 162 (Del) (Industria DE Diseno Textile SA -V/s- Oriental Cuisines Pvt Ltd & others).
2. 2013 (55) PTC 542 (Del) (Heinz India Pvt Ltd - V/s- M/s Shrejee Remdies).
--11-- O.S.No.4385/2010
3. 2008 (36) PTC 231 (Del) (Micolube India Limited -V/s- Maggon Auto Centre and Another).
4. 1998 IAD (Delhi) 927 (Satish Khosla -V/s- M/s Eli Lilly Ranbaxy Ltd and another).
Perused the decisions relied upon by the learned counsels appearing for the plaintiff and the first defendant referred above in the light of facts of this case.
7. My findings on the above issues are as follows;
Issue No.1 ; Affirmative.
Issue No.2 ; Partly Affirmative.
Issue No.3 ; As per final order.
For the following reasons.
REASONS
8. Issue No.1 & 2;- The plaintiff filed this suit against the " N U F IL "
defendants for passing off action of its trademark and " N U F IL S A F E "
in the business of medicines and pharmaceuticals by " N U F IL "
adopting the similar trademark . Both the marks are not
--12-- O.S.No.4385//2010 registered under Trademarks Act before the Trademark Registry. It is to be noted that the defendant No.1 did not deny the plaintiffs " N U F IL " " N U F IL SA F E "
trademark and adopted in the business of manufacturing and/or marketing medicinal, pharmaceuticals products for the last several years. It is also to be noted that the defendant No.1 " N E U F IL "
adopted the impugned mark in the business of manufacturing medicinal, pharmaceutical and veterinary preparations products for the last several years. According to plaintiff " N U F IL " "NUFIL they are the prior users of the trademark and SA F E "
. The defendant No.1 denied the plaintiffs assertion and " N E U F IL "
contended that they adopted the trademark prior to 2006.
9. Let me peruse the evidence placed by both plaintiff and the defendant whether the plaintiff is the prior user of the trademark, and the defendant No.1 has no right adopt the mark which phonetically, virtually or deceptively similar to the trademark adopted by the plaintiff. It is seen from the pleadings and the evidence of both plaintiff and the defendant No.1 the business which the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 are doing is similar. Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are the authorization and board resolution authorizing the representative of
--13-- O.S.No.4385/2010 plaintiff to give evidence. It is to be noted that the defendant No.1 did not deny the authorization of PW1 in giving evidence. Therefore, it is unnecessary to discuss Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. Ex.P3 is the Annual Report for the year 2009 of Plaintiffs Company. On going through the cross examination of PW1 nothing is brought out by the defendant No.1 to indicate that Ex.P3 is got prepared for the purpose of this case. Therefore no reasons to disbelieve the contents of Ex.P3. Page 121 of Ex.P3 evident that the plaintiff company is doing of manufacturing N U F IL N U F IL and marketing the product under the trademark and SA F E since April, 2007. Ex.P4 the certificate of expenses issued by the chartered accountant at page-165 and 166 would indicate that the N U F IL NU F IL SA F E plaintiff company is using the trademark and since 1/4/2002. Ex.P5 to Ex.P8 are the certified copies of applications filed by the plaintiff in the month July 2006 for the registration of N U F IL N U F IL SA F E mark and for manufacturing and marketing of medicinal and pharmaceuticals products.
10. Ex.P12 to Ex.P15 the invoices evident the sales of medicinal and pharmaceuticals products of plaintiff to the dealers N U F IL under the trademark . Ex.P16 to Ex.P20 are the pamphlets of
--14-- O.S.No.4385/2010 plaintiff company would indicate that the plaintiff is manufacturing N U F IL the drug called The Ultra safe Filgrastim under the trademark SA F E . Ex.P22 is the cover of first defendant's product with trademark "N EU FI L " .
Ex.D1 is the authorization letter issued by the first defendant company to DW1 to give evidence. It is to be noted that there is no dispute about this document. Thus, it is clear that DW1 was authorized by first defendants company to give evidence.
11. Ex.D2 is the letter obtained by the first defendant under RTI discloses that the plaintiff filed applications before trademark N U F IL N U F IL S A F E registry for registration of the trademarks and .
There is no dispute about the fact that the plaintiff company applied for registration of trademark for the business of manufacturing and marketing of medicinal and pharmaceuticals products. Ex.D3 to Ex.D9 are the website printouts of opposition filed by the first defendant to the plaintiff's applications. These documents are opposed by the plaintiff while marking, these documents are marked subject to objections. A perusal of Ex.D3 to Ex.D9, these documents are website printouts and the same are admissible in evidence. Therefore, the objection raised by the plaintiff is not sustainable. Thus, Ex.D3 to Ex.D9 is taken for consideration. Ex.D3 to Ex.D9
--15-- O.S.No.4385/2010 evident that a company by name USV Limited of B.S.D Marg, Govandi (E), Mumbai opposed the plaintiff's applications that they N U R IL are the trademark holder of . It is to be noted that the N U F IL N U R IL apparently and are distinct and there is no similarity.
The opposition made by USV company will not help the case of the first defendant. Ex.D10 to Ex.D14 does not disclose that the first N E U F IL defendant is prior user of the trademark in the business of medicinal and pharmaceuticals.
12. Let me go through the cross-examination of PW1whether the first defendant able brought out anything to the effect that the N U F IL N U F IL SA F E plaintiff is not the prior user of the marks and .
On going through the entire cross-examination of PW1 no worthwhile is brought out to the effect that the plaintiffs are not prior users of the trademarks. PW1 denied the suggestion that they have adopted the trademark NUFIL based on the trademark MEUFIL used by the first defendant. PW1 is specific in the cross-examination that they are using the trademark since 2007. Thus there is noting to discredit the evidence of PW1. It is seen from the cross-examination of DW1 that no case is filed against the plaintiff for using their trademark. There is nothing on record to indicate that the first defendant was a prior user
--16-- O.S.No.4385/2010 N E U F IL of trademark and the plaintiff have no right to question the N E U F IL trademark .
13. Looking to the over all evidence placed by the plaintiff and the first defendant both oral and documentary it is crystal clear N U F IL N U F IL that the plaintiff has been using the trademark and SA F E since April 2007. The first defendant has failed to prove the fact N E U F IL that they were in use of the trademark prior April 2007.
Therefore looking to the overall circumstances it is clear that the NUFIL N U F IL S A F E plaintiff is prior user of the trademark and in manufacturing and marketing the medicinal and pharmaceutical products. Thus, the plaintiff has established the prior use of the trademark.
14. The plaintiff and the first defendant are private limited companies engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of medicinal and pharmaceuticals. The Plaintiff company put up at Bangalore and first defendant put up at Mumbai, which is seen from the pleadings of both parties. Admittedly, both have no registration as required under section 28 of the Trade Marks Act-1999. The plaintiff
--17-- O.S.No.4385/2010 has established prior use of trademark. The impugned trademark is subsequent use by the first defendant. Both plaintiff and the first defendant are in the field of similar business. The suit is filed for passing off action under section 135 of Trade Marks Act-1999 of the trademark of plaintiff.
15. It is the assertion of the plaintiff that the first defendant N E U F IL adopted the trademark which is visually, phonetically, structurally identical and deceptively similar to their trademark. It is to be noted that the first defendant did not deny the use of trademark N U F IL N U F IL SA F E and by the plaintiff in the business of manufacturing and marketing of medicinal and pharmaceuticals. According to first defendant the plaintiff is not the exclusive owner of N U F IL N U F IL SA F E the trademark and . The plaintiff established prior use over the marks in the business. The prior use establishes plaintiff's right in using the said mark. Looking to the contention taken by the first defendant let me peruse both the marks, whether there is any deceptive similarity or identical. The plaintiff's trademark N U F IL N U F IL SA F E is and and the first defendant's trademark is N E U F IL . A perusal of both the marks, the artistic work, font
--18-- O.S.No.4385/2010 size and style are identical and similar. There is no much difference bet-ween both the marks. It is apparent that the first defendant has adopted the trademark of the plaintiff by inserting the word E in bet- ween N and U.
16. On scrutinizing both the marks, the adoption of the " N E U F IL "
trademark by the first defendant is deliberate. Thus, the " N E U F IL "
trademark adopted by the first defendant is identical and similar to the plaintiff's trademark. The suit is filed for passing off " N U F IL a nd action against the defendants in respect of trademark N U F IL SA F E "
. It is significant to note that both the marks are un- registered. Looking to the over evidence placed by the plaintiff and the defendants it is clear that the plaintiffs are the prior users of the marks. Thus, trademarks under usage of plaintiff since 2007 became his exclusive marks and no body can have a claim over the same including the defendants.
17. Looking to the written statement filed by the defendant, there is no explanation offered by the first defendant in adopting the offending trademark in the similar business which the plaintiff is
--19-- O.S.No.4385/2010 " N U F IL a nd N U F IL SA F E " .
doing under the trademark Looking to the nature of business of both plaintiff and defendants there is likelihood of confusion in the minds of the customers about the product. There is every possibility of passing off goods by the defendants as that of plaintiff. Ex.P23 evident that the plaintiff issued cease and desist notice to the first defendant. The first defendant instead of stop using the impugned trademark has replied the notice and issued rejoinder as per Ex.P24 and Ex.P26. The suit is filed for passing off action. There is no evidence to indicate that the plaintiff sustained loss because of the use of offending trademark by the first defendant. There is a pleading to the effect that the plaintiff acquired goodwill and reputation in the business. There is nothing on record placed by the first defendant that the plaintiff has no goodwill and reputation in the business. The oral evidence of PW1 proves the acquisition of good will and reputation. Looking to the contention of the first defendant and the manner in which reply is given to the notice it is well founded that the use of trademark which is similar to the plaintiffs trademark in the similar business is deceptive and to encash upon the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff.
18. The evidence placed on record clearly establishes the
--20-- O.S.No.4385/2010 "NUFIL and NUFIL SAFE".
plaintiff's monopoly over the trademark Looking to the contention taken in the written statement by the first defendant it is clear that the defendants refused to stop using the trademark, which is deceptively similar. The oral evidence of PW1 would indicate that the defendant continuously using the offending trademark even after filing of this case. Looking to the overall circumstances, the defendant is attempting to infringe the plaintiff's trademark and passing off goods and services under the offending "NUFIL trademark as and for plaintiffs well-established trademark a nd N U F IL S A F E "
is well founded. The action of the first defendant perse amounts to deception.
19. The gist of a passing off action is that a person has no right to pass off his goods as the goods of somebody else. An action for passing off is thus a generalized action and is enforceable in respect of registered as well as unregistered trademarks. The principle is that no body is entitled to represent his goods as the goods of somebody else. This principle is solely based on deception and in order to succeed, deception or likelihood of deception must be established. The evidence on record proves the fact that the defendants action amounts to passing off under section 135 of TM
--21-- O.S.No.4385/2010 Act-1999. There is enough evidence to indicate that the use of similar trademark by the first defendant is an attempt to infringe the plaintiff's trademark and pass off their goods as that of plaintiff. Therefore, in case of infringement and passing off normally injunction must follow.
20. As far as jurisdiction is concerned the second defendant is residing within the jurisdiction of this court and carrying on business. Section 20 CPC is made applicable to the case on hand. There is nothing on record placed by the first defendant to indicate that the second defendant is shown in the cause title to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of this court as contended by first defendant. Therefore, it is held that this court has got jurisdiction to try this suit.
21. Therefore in view foregoing reasons and under the circumstances, it is held that the plaintiffs have proved the fact that the offending trademark is identical and deceptively similar to that of their trademark. The first defendant even after appearance before this court contested that suit claiming the right over the trademark as plaintiff has no monopoly over the same. The law does not permit two competitors of same business to use the similar trademark. The prior user will prevail over the subsequent. If the first defendant is allowed
--22-- O.S.No.4385/2010 to continue with offending mark the plaintiff will be put to irreparable loss, which cannot be compensated by money. There is no evidence on record to the effect that the plaintiff sustained loss because of use of trademark by the first defendant. Therefore, ordering for enquire into the loss and damage suffered by the plaintiff does not arise at all. However, it is proper to direct the defendants to surrender to the plaintiffs the unused labels, wrappers, sales promotional materials etc bearing the impugned trademark "NEUFIL" and all the literature or any other device used for the application of the said impugned mark, which are in their possession or in the possession of their servants, agents and assigns. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of permanent injunction against the defendants from using the offending trademark. Hence, I answered Issue No.1 to 3 accordingly and proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The suit is partly decreed with costs. The defendants 1 and 2, their servants, agents, dealers and stockists or assigns are hereby restrained from directly or indirectly in any " N E U F IL "
manner using the mark or any other mark which is identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trademarks
--23-- O.S.No.4385/2010 " N U F IL " " N U F IL SA F E "
and so as to pass off or enable others to pass off the defendants goods as and for the goods of the plaintiff.
The defendants are hereby directed to deliver up for destruction to the plaintiffs all the goods, dies, articles, literatures, cartons, labels, papers and things bearing the impugned mark "NEUFIL".
The prayer sought by the plaintiffs to direct the defendants to render true and faithful account of all the profits earned by " N E U F IL "
them using the impugned mark and to pay such amount with interest at 18% from the date of suit till realization is hereby dismissed.
Draw decree accordingly.
[Prepared by me on the Laptop, Print out by the judgment writer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court dated this day the 30th April, 2015] [K.AMARANARAYANA] XVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
A N N E X U R E S;
1. No. of witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff;
PW1 ; Shikhar Kapoor.
--24-- O.S.No.4385/2010
2. No. of documents marked on behalf of plaintiff;
Ex.P1 ; Authorization Letter.
Ex.P2 ; Board Resolution.
Ex.P3 ; Profile of the Plaintiffs Company.
Ex.P4 ; Certificate of Expenses.
Ex.P5 ; Application No.1580496 given to
Trade Mark Registry by the Plaintiff.
Ex.P6 ; Certificate issued by the Trade Mark
Registry.
Ex.P7 ; Letter issued by the Trade Mark Registry to
the Trade Mark Attorney Puthram & Assts. Ex.P8 ; Application given for registration of NUFIL SAFE.
Ex.P9 ; Certificate issued by the Trade Mark Registry.
Ex.P10 ; Sample cover of the Product of NUFIL.
Ex.P11 ; Sample Product of NUFIL SAFE.
Ex.P12 ; Invoices of the product NUFIL.
Ex.P13 ; 10 invoices of the product NUFIL SAFE.
Ex.P14 ; Certificate of Chartered Accountant
showing sales of NUFIL and NUFIL SAFE.
Ex.P15 ; Certificate of Chartered Accountant
showing expenses incurred for development and marketing.
Ex.P16 to 19; Advertisements of NUFIL SAGE & NUFIL in medical journals.
Ex.P20 ; Nine Pamphlets of NUFIL & NUFIL SAFE. Ex.P21 ; Letter of first defendant dated; 8.9.2009 with Acknowledgement.
Ex.P22 ; Sample cover of defendants NUFIL. Ex.P23 ; Cease and Desist Notice issued to D1.
Ex.P24 ; Postal Receipt.
Ex.P25 ; Reply notice dated; 14.10.2009 by first
--25-- O.S.No.4385/2010
defendant with postal envelope.
Ex.P26 ; Reply of plaintiff to first defendant.
Ex.P27 & 28; Sales invoices of first defendant of NUFIL.
Ex.P29 ; Authorization letter of Sri.Abhayan
Jawaharlal who signed plaint and left the Job.
Ex.P30 ; Copy of Certificate of Incorporation of Plaintiff Company.
3. No. of witnesses examined on behalf of defendant;
DW1 ; Gargi Suresh Sawant.
4. No. of documents marked on behalf of defendants;
Ex.D1 ; Copy of Board Resolution.
Ex.D2 ; Letter issued by the Senior Examiner of
Trademark Registry.
Ex.D3 ; Opposition proceedings filed before
Trademark Registry.
Ex.D4 ; Plaintiffs reply before Trademark Registry.
Ex.D5 ; Website Printout of defendants evidence
before Trademark Registry.
Ex.D6 ; Website Printout of evidence of plaintiff
before Trademark Registry.
Ex.D7 ; Website Printout of reminder regarding
TM- 5 and TM - 6.
Ex.D8 ; Website printout of notice of opposition to
the application filed before Trademark Registry.
Ex.D9 ; Website printout of counter statement filed by the plaintiff.
Ex.D10 ; Literature of NEUFIL.
--26-- O.S.No.4385/2010
Ex.D11 to 13; Promotion Materials.
Ex.D14 ; Website Extract of Granulocyte
Macrophage.
[K.AMARANARAYANA]
XVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.