Delhi District Court
Abbott Helthcare Private Limited vs Chemetac Pharmaceuticals on 12 March, 2025
-1-
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIDYA PRAKASH
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS
NEW DELHI
CNR NO.: DLND01-001903-2019
CS (COMM.)/933/2022
[OLD NO.:- TM NO.: 12/2019, &
CS (COMM) No. 325/2019]
IN THE MATTER OF:
ABBOTT HELTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED
3, Corporate Park
Sion-Trombay Road,
Chembur
Mumbai-400071.
Also at -
708, Ansal Bhawan
Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi- 110001
... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
CHEMETAC PHARMACEUTICALS
42, Mainapur,
Near Gandhi Dharma Kanta,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh- 201003
India.
... DEFENDANT
Date of Institution : 28-01-2019
Date of reserving Judgment : 13-02-2025
Date of pronouncing Judgment : 12-03-2025
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present suit for permanent injunction, infringement of trademark, copyright, passing off, damages, rendition of accounts etc., CS (COMM.)/933/2022 Page 1 of 39 -2- filed by plaintiff against the defendant.
2. At the outset, it must be mentioned that initially, the present suit was filed as a non-commercial suit before the Court of Ld. Additional District Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. During the course of trial, the case was received by this Court by way of transfer, on 01-08-2022 in view of Order No.17016-17031/Judl./NDD/ PHC/2022 dated 05-7-2022 of the then Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, New Delhi District, PHC and consequent upon the directions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case titled as 'Vishal Pipes Limited v. Bhavya Pipe Industry' FAO-IPD No.1/2022 & CM APPLs No. 12-14/2022 dated 03-6-2022.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
3. The case of the plaintiff, as set out in the plaint, is as under:-
3.1 The plaintiff, which is claimed to be a company duly incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, got instituted the present suit through its Manager (Legal)/ Authorized Representative namely Ms. Tejal Mundkur, who has been duly authorized by the plaintiff company to institute, sign, verify and pursue the present suit, by virtue of Power of Attorney.
3.2 It is averred that the plaintiff is a wholly owned subsidiary of Abbott Laboratories, Chicago, USA which was founded in the year 1888 by a young CS (COMM.)/933/2022 Page 2 of 39 -3- Chicago physician, Dr. Wallace Calvin Abbott. Abbott Laboratories is a global, diversified health care company devoted to the discovery, development, manufacture and marketing of pharmaceutical, diagnostic, nutritional and hospital products. It is further averred that 'Abbott India Limited' having its registered office at 3-4, Corporate Park Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "Abbott India" ), is an affiliate of the plaintiff.
3.3 Thus, it is averred that the plaintiff is a wholly owned subsidiary of Abbott Laboratories and deals in manufacture and marketing of pharmaceutical, diagnostic, nutritional and hospital products [hereinafter referred to as the 'said goods and business'] in India and the plaintiff on its own and through its affiliates in India is dedicated to providing quality healthcare and pharmaceutical products to its valued customers. The plaintiff together with its affiliates, is one of the most reputed and largest pharmaceutical companies carrying on business in India.
3.4 It is averred that the plaintiff has over 8000 employees with a network of 30 distribution points, which cater to 5,500 stockists, who in turn supplies its products to 4-5 lakhs retailers in India.
3.5 The products manufactured and marketed by the plaintiff are sold under their well-known and famous CS (COMM.)/933/2022 Page 3 of 39 -4- trademarks and/or brand names which includes Avomin, Flagyl, Sorbitrate, Tenormin, Digene, Cremaffin, etc. 3.6 It is claimed that that the plaintiff's products encompass a wide and diverse range and are known for their efficacy, reliability and excellence of quality. The plaintiff and its affiliates maintain state of the art research and development facilities for developing new products and upgrading their present range of products. All such products are subject to stringent quality testing to ensure safety and efficacy of these goods.
3.7 Further, the plaintiff through its predecessor-in-title claimed to be owner and registered proprietor of the trade mark 'ESGIPYRIN' [hereinafter referred to as the 'said trade mark'] vide No.293710 in class 5 in respect of the said medicinal and pharmaceutical preparation as on 22nd January 1974. The same is stated to be renewed from time to time and subsisting and is in full legal force; conferring on the plaintiff the right to its exclusive use and to restrain use of any identical or deceptively similar mark by unauthorized persons.
3.8 It is stated that said trademark 'ESGIPYRIN' is a coined/invented word, having no dictionary meaning and is not derived from the principal ingredient/ formulation of the drug. The said trade-mark 'ESGIPYRIN' is being used by the plaintiff in CS (COMM.)/933/2022 Page 4 of 39 -5- relation with 'Diclofenac sodium and paracetamol preparations'. Thus, the mark has the highest degree of distinctiveness, connoting the plaintiff's goods exclusively.
3.9 It is stated that the said trademark 'ESGIPYRIN' was adopted, coined and registered with the trade mark registry by Suhrid Geigy Limited (hereinafter "SGL") in the year 1974. The name of Suhrid Geigy Limited was changed to S.G Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Limited. The new name S.G Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Limited (hereinafter "SGCPL") was brought on record in the Registry records, vide request dated December 24, 1979. Eventually, SGCPL merged with Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited (hereinafter "ASE"), on 27th March 1981. ASE was brought on record as the subsequent proprietor in the Trade Marks Register. Subsequently, Nicholas Piramal India Limited formed a Joint Venture with ASE called Compact Pharma Private Limited, which operated through its division named "Sarabhai Piramal Pharmaceutical", which later on changed its name to Compact Pharma Limited on October 01, 1997 (hereinafter "JV Company"). By virtue of an Assignment Agreement dated 3rd October,1997, ASE assigned the said trademark 'ESGIPYRIN' to the JV Company. The aforesaid Assignment Agreement contained a typographical error in the name of the assignee CS (COMM.)/933/2022 Page 5 of 39 -6- appearing in said Deed of Assignment ( appearing as Compact Pharma Private Limited in place of Compact Pharma Limited), due to lack of communication from Registrar of Companies, which issued the name change certificate]. Subsequently, the JV Company changed its name to Sarabhai Piramal Pharmaceuticals Limited on December 4, 1997, and further changed its name to Sarabhai Piramal Pharmaceuticals Private Limited on May 24, 2001. The name of the assignee was brought on record as the subsequent proprietor. Further vide order dated 27th day of April, 2004 of the Court, the JV Company Sarabhai Piramal Pharmaceuticals Private Limited was merged with Nicholas Piramal India Limited and thereby Nicholas Piramal India Limited became the registered proprietor of the said Trademark. Further, with effect from 13th May 2008, the name of Nicholas Piramal India Limited was changed to Piramal Healthcare Limited (Now known as Piramal Enterprises Limited).
3.10 It is stated that by virtue of further Assignment Agreement dated September 08, 2010, Piramal Healthcare Limited assigned the said Trademark - 'ESGIPYRIN' to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, has vide application dated February 21, 2011, sought to bring on record the plaintiff's name as a subsequent proprietor of the Trade Mark 'ESGIPYRIN' with the trademark Registry.
CS (COMM.)/933/2022 Page 6 of 39 -7-3.11 Thus, it is claimed that the plaintiff and its predecessors-in-title have been openly, continuously, extensively and exclusively using the said Trade Mark 'ESGIPYRIN' in respect of their goods since more than the last four decades, and it has, thus, become a well-known mark.
3.12 It is also averred that in addition to using a distinctive trademark, the plaintiff uses a unique blister packaging for its Tartrazine (yellow) tablets under the said mark. The plaintiff uses a unique yellow strip packaging in the front and the said trademark 'ESGIPYRIN' is prominently displayed in silver font in a black box on the backside. The photographs of strip/ packaging/ trade dress/ colour scheme, as depicted in plaint, are reproduced here under:-
[hereinafter referred to as the 'said packaging/ trade dress/ colour scheme'] 3.13 It is stated that in addition thereto, the plaintiff's product strips under the Trade Mark 'ESGIPYRIN' CS (COMM.)/933/2022 Page 7 of 39 -8- are sold in a box packaging in colours white and orange bearing a unique design (being outline of men in different postures). Thus, the distinctive packaging and strip described above constitute original artistic work of the plaintiff within the meaning of S.2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957, of which the plaintiff owns the copyright.
3.14 It is stated that the plaintiff has tremendous sales running into several millions of rupees for products sold under the said trademark throughout India. The details of year-wise sales since 2018 till 2006-07 are provided in Para no.8 of the plaint, wherein it is shown that the said plaintiff has sales worth Rs.1635.13 for the year 2006-2007. It is also claimed that the plaintiff has been continuously promoting the said business & goods under the said trademark and has incurred substantial expenses towards promotion thereof. It is stated that due to plaintiff's efforts and investment in promoting the brand 'ESGIPYRIN' and by virtue of its extensive use, the trade and public identify 'ESGIPYRIN' and its unique packaging with the plaintiff and no one else. Consequently, the plaintiff has earned substantial goodwill and reputation in the 'ESGIPYRIN' trade mark and its packaging, which acts as a unique identifier of their products.
Therefore, it is stated that said trademark is to be considered as 'well-known' trademarks within the CS (COMM.)/933/2022 Page 8 of 39 -9- meaning of Section 2 (1) (zg) and Section 11 of the Indian Trade Marks Act, 1999.
3.15 Hence, it is stated that on account of its good quality and standards of manufacturing and untiring efforts in advertising and marketing, the goods of the plaintiff under the said trade mark have acquired enviable reputation and goodwill in business community and public in general and in view of the plaintiff' proprietary rights both under statutory and common law in its said trademark and their goodwill & reputation, the plaintiff has the exclusive right to the use thereof and nobody can be permitted to use the same or any other deceptively similar trade mark/ packaging /trade dress in any manner whatsoever in relation to any specification of goods without the leave and license of the plaintiff.
3.16 It is alleged that on coming to know about defendant's infringing products under the trademark ERCAPYRINE and ENZAPYRINE, the plaintiff through its representative made extensive inquiries in the market to ascertain the identity of the person(s) who were manufacturing and marketing the identical impugned products.
3.17 It is stated that the defendant is a pharmaceutical company trading as Chemetac Pharmaceuticals, and inter alia, has been manufacturing, marketing, distributing and selling a drug containing 'diclofenac potassium and paracetamol' [hereinafter CS (COMM.)/933/2022 Page 9 of 39 -10- referred to as the 'impugned goods and business'] under the brand names ERCAPYRINE and ENZAPYRINE [hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned trade marks'] in a strip that is visually identical and deceptively similar to strip packaging of the plaintiff's 'ESGIPYRIN', thereby resulting in the acts of infringement and passing off. The photographs of impugned packaging/ strip is reproduced hereunder:-
ERCAPYRINE ENZAPYRINE [hereinafter referred to as the 'said impugned packaging/ trade dress/ colour scheme'] CS (COMM.)/933/2022 Page 10 of 39 -11- 3.18 The defendant is engaged in unauthorized manufacturing and marketing of tablets bearing the impugned trademarks ERCAPYRINE and ENZAPYRINE with similar strip packaging as that of the plaintiff's product sold under the mark 'ESGIPYRIN'. Further, the infringed products of the defendant sold under the impugned trademarks ERCAPYRINE and ENZAPYRINE are sold in yellow colour strip identical to the distinctive yellow colour strip of the plaintiff's products. The plaintiff claims that the impugned product is identical with the drug compound containing the same active ingredient used by the plaintiff of "Paracetamol and Diclofenac Sodium Tablets" as that contained in the plaintiff's products. It is averred that Diclofenac is non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) used to relieve pain and reduce inflammation.
3.19 The plaintiff had sent a Cease and Desist letter to the defendant on February 5, 2018 for their use of the deceptively similar mark ERCAPYRINE, however no written response was received. Thereafter, in the month of April 2018, the plaintiff came to know of defendant's use of another deceptively similar mark ENZAPYRINE, which, on close review, was found to be having near identical packaging/ color combination/ getup. The plaintiff once again addressed a Cease and Desist letter to the defendant CS (COMM.)/933/2022 Page 11 of 39 -12- on April 27, 2018 for their use of the deceptively similar marks ERCAPYRINE and ENZAPYRINE, however, once again, no response was received from the defendant.
3.20 It is further averred that the said trademarks ERCAPYRINE and ENZAPYRINE of defendant are deceptively similar to plaintiff's well known registered mark 'ESGIPYRIN'. The defendant has intentionally manipulated some letters in the plaintiff's mark 'ESGIPYRIN' to create deceptively similar marks ERCAPYRINE and ENZAPYRINE. In order to create confusion in the minds of traders and people; they have further copied the blister packing style along with the colour and size of the tablet, which is of the same color and size as the plaintiff's product.
3.21 It is also stated that the defendant is a habitual infringer and in the past, was found infringing the plaintiff's mark ESGIPYRIN by manufacturing a medicine under the brands EAZYPYRINE and ENZYPYRINE using substantial/ colorable imitations thereof. The plaintiff filed a suit for infringement against the defendant under no. CS (OS) No. 2270/2014 before Hon'ble Delhi High Court, which was pleased to pass an order of ex- parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff, vide order 04.08.2014. During pendency of the proceedings, the defendant approached the plaintiff CS (COMM.)/933/2022 Page 12 of 39 -13- and a settlement was arrived at between the parties. As per the settlement dated August 10, 2017, the defendant agreed to give up the impugned marks EAZYPYRINE and ENZYPYRINE in totality and undertook not to adopt and manufacture any product, which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's ESGIPYRIN trademark. The Defendant further undertook not to use any packaging/ strip, which is colorable imitation or substantial reproduction of plaintiff's trademark ESGIPYRIN packaging and/ or strip.
3.22 It is stated that the defendant's present conduct of using the impugned marks ERCAPYRINE and ENZAPYRINE is clear violation of the terms of the settlement, which the defendant agreed to as a part of the joint compromise application, which was recorded by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the said matter.
3.23 It is also stated that the plaintiff's product 'ESGIPYRIN' is commonly known as "Peeli Goli"
in Hindi (meaning "yellow tablet") by uneducated/ unaware masses consuming or referring to this product. The defendant, by way of their imitation of yellow blister strips and tablets of identical colour, shape and size, is en-cashing on the reputation and goodwill earned by ESGIPYRIN products. Such masses referring a product, thus, identify the product by its colour, size and blister packing rather than CS (COMM.)/933/2022 Page 13 of 39 -14- names of manufacturer/distributor mentioned on the blister strips. It is also a well-known practice of chemists and retailers to sell parts of strips (say, half or one fifth of a strip of ten tablets). A consumer purchasing a part of a strip, is even more likely to identify a medicine by the shape, colour scheme and get up of a tablet. The use of an identical packaging, colour scheme and get up in respect of products bearing the deceptively similar marks ERCAPYRINE and ENZAPYRINE by the defendant itself establishes malafide intention of the defendant to ride piggy back on the goodwill and reputation earned by the plaintiff on its product bearing the registered mark ESGIPYRIN.
3.24 Hence, it is alleged that the defendant has dishonestly and malafidely adopted impugned Trade Marks/ trade dress/ blister packaging in yellow colour 'ERCAPYRINE and ENZAPYRINE', which is identical and /or deceptively and confusingly similar to plaintiff's trade mark/ trade dress/ blister packaging in yellow colour 'ESGIPYRIN', thereby causing confusion and deception amongst the unwary purchasing public and traders by making them believe that the origin of those goods is that of the plaintiff. It has been averred that by doing so, the defendant is not only damaging the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff by passing off its substandard products as that of the plaintiff, but is CS (COMM.)/933/2022 Page 14 of 39 -15- also causing financial loss to the plaintiff by reaping unfair advantage of the repute and distinctive character of the said trademark/ trade dress of the plaintiff.
4. On these grounds, the plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendant praying therein, inter alia, that decree of permanent injunction may be passed restraining the defendant and all others acting for and on their behalf from using the impugned Trade Mark/ trade dress/ colour scheme 'ERCAPYRINE and ENZAPYRINE' or any other trade mark/ trade dress/ colour scheme, which may be identical and /or deceptively and confusingly similar to plaintiff's trade mark/ trade dress/ colour scheme 'ESGIPYRIN' in relation to similar goods, thereby infringing plaintiff's registered trademark, copyright and passing off their products as that of the plaintiff.
5. The suit was accompanied with applications - one under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC and another under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC seeking ex parte ad interim injunction and ex parte order for appointment of local commissioner to visit and search the premises of the defendant. After hearing counsel of the plaintiff, the said applications were allowed, vide common order dated 29-01-2019 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court, thereby granting an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and Local Commissioner was also appointed to visit and search the premises of the defendant with certain conditions as mentioned therein.CS (COMM.)/933/2022 Page 15 of 39 -16-
6. In pursuant to the said order, Ld. Local Commissioner had executed the commission and filed his detailed report on record, according to which, the impugned goods/ empty boxes bearing impugned trade marks 'ERCAPYRINE and ENZAPYRINE' were found from the premises of defendant and after preparing inventory thereof, same were handed over to the defendants on superdarinama in terms of the relevant order.
7. After being served with the summons of the suit and notice of accompanying applications, none appeared on behalf of defendant and consequently, the defendant was proceeded against ex parte, vide order dated 08-5-2019, passed by Ld. Predecessor of the Court. However, subsequently, the defendant put its appearance through counsel namely Sh. Amit Tomar, Advocate.
8. It may be noted that on account of outbreak of Covid-19, the matter got adjourned en bloc in view of direction of Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the then Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and subsequently, was taken up through virtual/ hybrid mode.
9. At this juncture, it may also be noted that the present case was received by this Court on 01-08-2022, as already noted above in Para no.2, and an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was moved on behalf of the plaintiff seeking amendment of the suit, thereby enhancing specified value to be above Rs.3 lacs, so as to bring the present suit within the ambit of the Commercial Courts CS (COMM.)/933/2022 Page 16 of 39 -17- Act, 2015, in view of the directions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Vishal Pipes Limited (supra), which was allowed vide order dated 28-11-2022, passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court, thereby directing the defendant to file written statement to amended plaint within 30 days from the date of said order. However, despite grant of sufficient opportunities and time, the defendant failed to file written statement to the amended plaint and consequently, the matter was posted for ex parte PE, vide order dated 06-03-2023, passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
10. In view of above, the position as emerges on record is that no written statement either to the original plaint or even to the amended plaint, has been filed by the defendant.
11. In support of its case, the plaintiff company has examined only one witness i.e. its AR namely Ms. Tejal Mundkur as PW1. She led examination-in-chief by way of affidavit [Ex.PW1/A] and deposed in terms of the facts of the plaint and has relied on the following documents:-
Srl. Document/Particulars Exhibit(s) No
1. Power of Attorney executed in Ex. PW1/1 favour of Tejal Mundkur by the Plaintiff
2. Copy of Certificate issued by Ex. PW1/2 Trademark Registry dated 22.01.1974
3. Copy of amalgamation order dated Ex. PW1/3 27.03.1981 CS (COMM.)/933/2022 Page 17 of 39 -18- Srl. Document/Particulars Exhibit(s) No
4. Copy of deed of assignment dated Ex. PW1/4 03.10.1997
5. Copy of order dated 27.04.2004 Ex. PW1/5 for amalgamation passed by Hon`ble Bombay High Court for amalgamation/merging of Sarabhai Piramal Pharmaceuticals Private Limited with Nicholas Piramal India Limited along with scheme of amalgamation
6. Copy of Certificate of change of Ex. PW1/6 name of 'Nicholas Piramal India Limited' to 'Piramal Healthcare Limited'
7. Copy of deed of assignment dated Ex. PW1/7 08.09.2010 between 'Abbott Healthcare Private Limited' and "Piramal Healthcare Limited'
8. Copy of Certificate dated Ex. PW1/8 16.03.2012 issued by IMS, Health Information and Consultant Services India Pvt. Ltd
9. Copy of the drug manufacturing MARK A license obtained from Health and Family Welfare Department, Baddi, Himachal Pradesh
10. Certificate of Independent Ex. PW1/10 Chartered Accountant firm certifying the sales and promotional figures achieved by the Plaintiff
11. Copies of Sales Invoices showing Ex. PW 1/11 sale of Plaintiff`s product bearing the mark 'ESGIPYRIN'
12. Copies of Promotional Materials Ex. PW1/12 including brochure pertaining to 'ESGIPYRIN' mark of Plaintiff CS (COMM.)/933/2022 Page 18 of 39 -19- Srl. Document/Particulars Exhibit(s) No
13. Internet download showing Ex. PW 1/13 various brands in relation to (Colly) Medicines containing 'Diclofenac Sodium and Paracetamol'
14. Packaging of products of Plaintiff Ex. PW 1/14 and Defendant
15. Copy of Cease and Desist Letter Ex. PW 1/15 dated 05.02.2018 to the Defendant
16. Copy of Cease and Desist Ex. PW 1/16 letter/Reminder Letter dated 27.04.2018 to the Defendant
17. Copy of order dated 01.08.2014 Ex. PW 1/17 passed by the Hon`ble High Court of Delhi in CS(OS) 2270/2014 against Defendant against use of mark 'ENZYPRINE' and 'EASYPRINE'
18. Copy of order dated 30.11.2017 Ex. PW 1/18 passed by Hon`ble High Court of Delhi in CS(COMM) 638/2016 decreeing suit in terms of compromise application filed by Plaintiff and Defendant
19. Copy of Joint Compromise Ex. PW 1/19 Application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC dated 02.11.2017 jointly filed by Plaintiff and Defendant
20. Online extracts of third party Ex. PW 1/20 websites showing Defendant carrying its business
21. Internet extracts of Google search Ex. PW 1/21 showing Defendant`s Business activity
22. Copy of clear and legible copy of Ex. PW 1/22 Notice of Trademark caution for the Plaintiff`s mark 'ESGIPYRIN"
CS (COMM.)/933/2022 Page 19 of 39 -20-Srl. Document/Particulars Exhibit(s) No
23. Copies of Orders evidencing Ex. PW 1/23 initiation of Court Action by the Plaintiff against third parties
24. Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Ex.PW1/24 Evidence Act
12. The ex parte evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 20-11-2023. After the closure of PE, final arguments were heard.
13. It may be noted here that during the course of final arguments, Ld. Counsel of plaintiff made statement to give up prayer/relief as prayed in Prayer Clause No. 38(e) of the amended plaint regarding rendition of accounts. Accordingly, the plaintiff was permitted to give up the said reliefs, vide order dated 29-07-2024.
14. I have already heard Ld. counsel of the plaintiff. I have also gone through the material available on record including the plaint and the evidence, oral as well as documentary, led from the side of the plaintiff.
15. I have also gone through the written submissions, as also the relied upon judicial precedents, filed on behalf of the plaintiff.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PLAINTIFF
16. In support of his case, Ld. Counsel of plaintiff has advanced the following arguments:-
CS (COMM.)/933/2022 Page 20 of 39 -21-16.1 The entire testimony of PW-1 has remained unchallenged and un-rebutted from the side of defendant and therefore, the plaintiff company is entitled to the decree, as prayed for, and in that regard, has relied upon the documents duly proved by PW1 as Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/24.
16.2 Further, the plaintiff through its predecessors-in-
titles has coined, adopted and has been openly, commercially, continuously and without interruption of others, has been using the said trade mark since 1974 and thus, the plaintiff is prior adopter and user of the said trade mark.
16.3 The said trade mark 'ESGIPYRIN' is registered vide No.293710 in class 5 in respect of the medicinal and pharmaceutical preparation as of 22nd January 1974 and by virtue of further Assignment Agreement dated September 08, 2010, Piramal Healthcare Limited had assigned the said Trademark - 'ESGIPYRIN' to the plaintiff.
16.4 The art works involved in the trademark/ trade dress is original artistic works and the plaintiff holds copyright therein.
16.5 The plaintiff spends huge amount of money in advertising and promotion of its products and said mark enjoys a huge goodwill and reputation in business community and public in general in India and across the world.
CS (COMM.)/933/2022 Page 21 of 39 -22-16.6 Ld. Local Commissioner, while executing the commission in terms of the orders passed by this Court, had found certain infringed goods from the premises of the defendant, which establishes that the defendant was involved in the illegal activities.
16.7 Local Commissioner's Report can be read in evidence in terms of Order XXVI Rule 10(2) CPC and for this purpose,he also relied upon judgment of our own Hon'ble High Court in case titled as " M L Brother LLP v. Mahesh Kumar Bhrualal Tanna" [CS (COMM) 126/2022, decided on 12th May, 2022].
16.8 In the previous proceedings filed by plaintiff against the defendant before Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide CS(OS) NO. 2270/2014, a settlement was arrived at between the parties. As per the settlement dated August 10, 2017, the defendant had agreed to give up the impugned marks EAZYPYRINE and ENZYPYRINE in totality and undertook not to adopt and manufacture any product, which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's ESGIPYRIN trademark. The defendant further undertook not to use any packaging/ strip, which is colorable imitation or substantial reproduction of plaintiff's trademark ESGIPYRIN packaging and/ or strip. Despite such settlement, the defendant had launched impugned goods under the impugned trademarks 'ERCAPYRINE and ENZAPYRINE', which is in blatant violation of the law.
CS (COMM.)/933/2022 Page 22 of 39 -23-16.9 The plaintiff's product 'ESGIPYRIN' is commonly known as "Peeli Goli" in Hindi (meaning "yellow tablet") by uneducated/ unaware masses consuming or referring to this product.The defendant, by way of their imitation of yellow blister strips and tablets of identical colour, shape and size, is cashing in on the reputation and goodwill earned by ESGIPYRIN products. The use of an identical packaging, colour scheme and get up in respect of products bearing the deceptively similar marks ERCAPYRINE and ENZAPYRINE by the defendant itself establishes malafide intention of the defendant to ride piggy back on the goodwill and reputation earned by the plaintiff on its product bearing the registered mark ESGIPYRIN and therefore, he urged that the suit may be decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, thereby restraining the defendant and all others acting for and on their behalf from using said impugned trademark/ label.
17. In support of his contentions, Ld. Counsel of plaintiff has also relied upon following judgments:-
17.1 'Hindustan Pencils Pvt. Ltd. v. India Stationery Products Co. & Ors.' reported as (1989) ILR 1 Delhi 115;
17.2 'Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors. v. Abony Healthcare Limited & Ors.', reported as MANU/DE/7129/2023;CS (COMM.)/933/2022 Page 23 of 39 -24-
17.3 'Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. Sudhir Bhatia & Ors.' reported as (2004) 3 SCC 90;
17.4 'Durgadutta v. Navratana', reported as AIR 1965 SC 980;
17.5 'Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.', reported as AIR 2001 SC 1952;
17.6 'Laxmikant Patel v. Chetanbhat Shah ', reported as AIR 2002 SC 275;
17.7 'B. K. Engineering Co. v. Ubhi Enterprises & Ors.' reported as AIR1985 Delhi2010;
17.8 'Colgate Palmolive Company & Ors. v. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd.' reported MANU/DE/1000/2003;
17.9 'G. D. Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Cento Products (India)' decided on 07-08-2024 having neutral citation 2024:DHC: 6224;
17.10 'Deere & Company & Anr. v. Mr. Malkit Singh & Ors.' decided on 23-04-2018, having neutral citation:
2008:DHC: 2637;
17.11 'Deere & Company & Anr. v. S. Harcharan Singh & Anr.' decided on 05-03-2015, having neutral citation:
2015: DHC : 2239;
17.12 'Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Fizark Healthcare & Anr.' decided on 28-02-2017; and CS (COMM.)/933/2022 Page 24 of 39 -25- 17.13 'Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v. Uniplus Biotech Pvt.
Ltd. & Ors.' bearing CS (OS) 3632/2014, decided on 25-10-2017.
ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION:
18. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the plaintiff. I have also duly considered the relevant material available on records.
JURISDICTION:
19. Firstly, as regards jurisdiction of this Court, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel of plaintiff that the plaintiff is carrying on its business from its registered office, which is situated at Ansal Bhawan, Katurba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001, which falls within territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Besides, the plaintiff also sells/ offers their wide range of products through online stores/ e-commerce websites such as www.amazon.in and www.netmeds.com, as also through its own website i.e. www.abbott.co.in, which are stated to be interactive in nature, and thus, accessible through any place including the area within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Thus, it is contended that this Court further has also territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit within the meaning of S. 134 (2) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 and also under S. 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
20. Apart from above, it is also contended that the defendant is also selling and soliciting to sale its impugned goods under the impugned marks through third party websites namely CS (COMM.)/933/2022 Page 25 of 39 -26- www.tradeindia.com, www.justdial.com and www.deldure.com, which are also stated to be interactive in nature through which goods can be shown, sold, purchased, and delivered to any place including the area within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and, therefore, it is stated that whole or part cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court within the meaning of S. 20 CPC and thus, this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit.
21. The PW1 has categorically deposed in her affidavit in evidence on the identical lines of the averments made in the plaint. PW1 has proved online extracts of third party websites showing the defendant carrying on its business, as Ex.PW1/20.
22. The whole testimony of PW1 remained unchallenged and uncontroverted as the defendant has neither filed written statement, nor has chosen to cross-examine PW1.
23. Therefore, in view of the law as laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in cases titled as "Banyan Holding (P) Ltd. v. A Murali Krishna Reddy & Anr." reported as 2009 SCC OnLine Del 3780 ; "World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Reshma Collection & Ors." reported as 2014 (60) PTC 452 (Del.) (DB); and "Burger King v. Tekchand", reported as 2018 (76) PTC 90 (Del.), the Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has been able to satisfy the test of purposeful availment of its goods under the registered trade mark/ CS (COMM.)/933/2022 Page 26 of 39 -27- label within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, as laid down in the said judgments delivered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
24. In view of the foregoing reasons and in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the above cited judgments and keeping in view the fact that the evidence of PW1 remained unchallenged and uncontroverted, the Court is of the considered opinion that at least part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and therefore, this Court has got territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit.
PERMANENT INJUNCTION:
25. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as "Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. v. B. Vijaya Sai & Ors", reported as MANU/SC/0066/2022, has laid down law with respect to infringement of trade mark, to quote:-
43. The legislative scheme is clear that when the mark of the Defendant is identical with the registered trade mark of the plaintiff and the goods or services covered are similar to the ones covered by such registered trade mark, it may be necessary to prove that it is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public, or which is likely to have an association with the registered trade mark. Similarly, when the trade mark of the plaintiff is similar to the registered trade mark of the Defendant and the goods or services covered by such registered trade mark are identical or similar to the goods or services covered by such registered trade mark, it may again be necessary to establish that it is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public However, when the trade mark of the Defendant is identical with the registered trade mark of the plaintiff and that the goods or services of the Defendant are identical with the goods or services covered by registered trade CS (COMM.)/933/2022 Page 27 of 39 -28- mark, the Court shall presume that is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public.
45. It could thus be seen that this Court has pointed out the distinction between the causes of action and right to relief in suits for passing off and for infringement of registered trade mark. It has been held that the essentials of a passing off action with those in respect of an action complaining of an infringement of a registered trade-mark, cannot be equated. It has been held that though an action for passing off is a Common Law remedy being an action for deceit, that is, a passing off by a person of his own goods as those of another; the action for infringement is a statutory right conferred on the registered proprietor of registered trade mark for the vindication of the exclusive rights to the use of the trade mark in relation to those goods. The use by the Defendant of the trademark of the plaintiff is a sine qua non in the case of an action for infringement. It has further been held that if the essential features of the trade mark of the plaintiff have been adopted by the defendant, the fact that the get-up, packing and other writing or marks on the goods or on the packets in which he offers his goods for sale show marked differences, or indicate clearly a trade origin different from that of the registered proprietor of the mark, would be immaterial in case of infringement of the trade mark, whereas in the case of a passing off, the Defendant may escape liability if he can show that the added matter is sufficient to distinguish his goods from those of the plaintiff.
47. It could thus be seen that this Court again reiterated that the question to be asked in an infringement action is as to whether the Defendant is using a mark which is same as, or which, is a colourable imitation of the plaintiff's registered trade mark. It has further been held that though the get up of the Defendant's goods may be so different from the plaintiff's goods and the prices may also be so different that there would be no probability of deception of the public, nevertheless even in such cases, i.e. in an infringement action, an injunction would be issued as soon as it is proved that Defendant is improperly using the Plaintiff's mark. It has been reiterated that no case of actual deception nor any actual damage needs to be proved in such cases This Court has further held that though two actions are closely similar in some respects, in an action for infringement, where the Defendant's trade mark is identical with the Plaintiff's trade mark, the Court will not enquire whether the infringement in such as is likely to deceive or cause confusion.
26. Further, our own Hon'ble High Court in the case titled as CS (COMM.)/933/2022 Page 28 of 39 -29- 'Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Superior Industries Ltd'. 2003 (27) PTC 63 (Del) has laid down the principle as to how infringement of trade mark is to be seen, to quote:-
12.It is well settled that in an action for alleged infringement of a registered trade mark, if the impugned marked used by the defendant is identical with the registered trade mark of the plaintiffs, no further questions have been to be addressed and it has to be held that there is indeed an infringement. If the mark is not identical, the matter has to be further considered and it has to be seen whether the mark of the defendant is deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff. Deceptive similarity means that the mark is likely to deceive or cause confusion in relation to goods in respect of which the plaintiff got its mark registered. For the purpose of this comparison, the two marks have to be compared, not by placing them side by side, but by asking the question whether having due regard to relevant surrounding circumstances, defendant's mark is similar to that of the plaintiffs, as would be remembered by persons possessed of an average memory with its usual imperfections. On the touchstone of this query, it is to be determined whether the mark of the defendant is likely to deceive or cause confusion. The sequetur to the aforesaid preposition of law, is that, in an action of infringement, for the success by the plaintiff, he need not prove that the whole of his registered trade mark has been copied, but he can also succeed, if, he shows that the mark used by the defendant is similar to the mark of the plaintiff, as it would be numbered by persons possessed of an average memory with its usual imperfection or with its usual imperfection or that its essential particulars or the distinguishing or essential feature has been copied (ILR 197 (II) Delhi 225 Jagan Nath Prem Nath v. Bhartiya Dhoop Karvalaya Para-7).
27. In view of above law, lets examine the facts of the case in hand. The averments made in the plaint are duly supported by the documents proved during the course of evidence. PW-1 has deposed on identical lines of the averments made in the plaint and has proved various documents, as already referred to above.
CS (COMM.)/933/2022 Page 29 of 39 -30-28. In the case titled as "Amrish Agarwal Vs M/s Venus Home Appliances Pvt. Ltd" in CM (M) 1059/2018 dated 27-08-2019, passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it was directed, inter alia, that in trademark infringement matters, the following documents ought to be necessarily filed along with the plaint. The relevant Para no.7 of this judgment is reproduced hereunder:
"7. It is directed that in trade mark infringement matters the following documents ought to be necessarily filed along with the plaint:
(i) Legal Proceedings Certificate (LPC) of the trade mark showing the mark, date of application, date of user claimed, conditions and disclaimers if any, assignments and licenses granted, renewals etc.,
(ii) If the LPC is not available, at the time of filing of the suit and urgent orders of injunction are being sought, a copy of the trade mark registration certificate, copy of the trade mark journal along with the latest status report from the website of the Trade Mark Registry. This should be accompanied by an averment in the pleadings that LPC is applied for. Specific averment ought to be made that there are no disclaimers imposed on the mark and the mark stands renewed. Any licenses and assignments ought to be pleaded.
(iii) xxxx
(iv) In the case of (ii), the party ought to file the LPC prior to the commencement of the trial, if any aspect of the trade mark registration is being disputed by the opposite side"
29. In this case, the plaintiff has relied upon and has filed copy of Legal Proceeding Certificate pertaining to registered trademark 'ESGIPYRIN', which is duly proved by PW-1 as Ex.PW1/2. According to which, it is shown that said trademark is registered in class 5 vide No.293710 in plaintiff's name. PW-1 has also proved Assignment Deed dated September 8, 2010 as Ex.PW1/7, whereby the CS (COMM.)/933/2022 Page 30 of 39 -31- 'Piramal Healthcare Limited' assigned the said trade mark to the plaintiff.
30. Further, during the course of final arguments, counsel of plaintiff has stated that the registration of said trademark stands renewed and is valid till date. According to above-mentioned documents, it is duly shown that said trademark 'ESGIPYRIN' is registered in favour of plaintiff and/or its predecessors since 1974.
31. As already noted above, despite service of summons, none appeared on behalf of defendant and thus, he was proceeded against ex parte. Subsequent thereto, the defendant put its appearance through counsel but did not choose to file any application seeking setting aside of the ex parte order. Even after amendment was allowed and grant of sufficient opportunities, the defendant did not file written statement to the amended plaint. Moreover, none has appeared on behalf of defendant to cross-examine PW1. Therefore, the entire testimony of PW-1 has gone un-rebutted, uncontroverted and unchallenged and thus, the case of the plaintiff stood proved against the defendant on the basis of preponderance of probability. It is duly established on record that the trademark 'ESGIPYRIN' is duly registered/ assigned to plaintiff and also that same is valid and subsisting as on date in favour of the plaintiff.
32. PW1 has also proved copy of order dated 30-11-2017 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of ' Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v. Chemetac Pharmaceuticals & Ors. ' bearing CS (COMM) 638/2016 as Ex.PW-1/19, according CS (COMM.)/933/2022 Page 31 of 39 -32- to which, the suit was decreed in terms of compromise/ settlement arrived at between the parties while disposing off the application under Order XXXIII Rules 3 read with S. 151 CPC jointly moved by the parties therein. The PW1 has also proved the said application as Ex.PW1/18, whereby the defendant had agreed, inter alia, that it shall not manufacture, sell or offer for sale, advertise, directly or indirectly medicinal and pharmaceuticals preparations under the packaging and/ or strip bearing the mark 'EAZYPYRINE' and 'ENZYPYRINE' in respect of diclofenac sodium and paracetamol preparations, which is colourable imitation or substantial reproduction of the plaintiff's trade mark ESGIPYRIN. Despite such settlement, the defendant launched its impugned goods bearing mark "ENZ'A'PYRINE" by replacing alphabet 'Y' with 'A', yet same is phonetically similar to the plaintiff's registered trade mark ESGIPYRIN.
33. In the cited case of M/s Fizark Healthcare & Anr (supra), which was filed by the plaintiff herein, Hon'ble Delhi High Court partly decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. In the cited case, the defendant was using impugned trade mark/ trade dress/ colour scheme (yellow) EASIPYRIN, which was claimed to be identical and deceptively similar to trade mark/ trade dress/ colour scheme of ESGIPYRING. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted here as under:-
"xxxx
8. A comparison of the plaintiffs registered trademark with the defendants' mark itself is sufficient to record CS (COMM.)/933/2022 Page 32 of 39 -33- satisfaction that the plaintiff's grievances are genuine and well founded. Both the marks are phonetically similar in relation to identical medicinal preparations. Since the plaintiff's trademark has been in prior use, the defendants having not entered appearance so as to plead that it has any registration with regard to mark under which it is selling its products or to raise any other valid defences available in law, the use of the impugned mark by the defendants, in the given facts and circumstances, must be held to be infringing the trademark of the plaintiff's use with regard to similar goods.The stark similarity of the packaging and trade dress is also proved by the plaintiff's evidence to which there has been no contest whatsoever. Xxxx
10. xx
(c) in packaging or using trade dress which is deceptive imitation or substantive reproduction of that of the plaintiff's product.
xxxx"
34. Further, as already noted above, the Local Commissioner had also found infringed goods bearing impugned trademark from the premises of the defendant at the time of execution of commission. Local Commissioner's Report, as available on record, would reveal that infringing material i.e. one box with medicines (200 total) was recovered along with 700 empty boxes of 'ENZAPYRINE' and 300 empty boxes of 'ERCAPYRINE' from the premises of the defendant. As regards production of books of accounts, it is mentioned that Mr. Ashok Gupta, Partner in firm had mentioned that the same are with CA and could not be produced as marriage function in the family of CA was near and he was engaged therein. Thus, it is shown that the premises was searched in the presence of Sh. Ashok Gupta, partner in firm / defendant, and infringed goods bearing impugned trade mark were seized and were handed over to him.
CS (COMM.)/933/2022 Page 33 of 39 -34-35. Since, the commission was executed in the presence of the defendant, it cannot be believed that it were not having any knowledge of proceedings going on before this Court and the orders passed therein.Thus, the report of Ld. Local Commissioner also remained uncontroverted and unchallenged.
36. In totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving that the defendant was manufacturing, stocking, distributing and selling goods bearing falsified trademark / trade dress / colour scheme 'ERCAPYRINE and ENZAPYRINE' which are deceptively and confusingly similar to the plaintiff's registered trade mark / trade dress/ colour scheme 'ESGIPYRIN' and therefore, trademark and copyright of plaintiff company are required to be protected. Accordingly, the plaintiff is held entitled to decree of permanent injunction, whereby the defendant is liable be restrained from using trade mark/ trade dress/ colour scheme 'ERCAPYRINE and ENZAPYRINE' or any other trade mark/ trade dress/ colour scheme which may be identical with and/ or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's said trade mark /trade dress / colour scheme 'ESGIPYRIN' n relation to similar goods, thereby infringing plaintiff's registered trademark, copyright and passing off its products as that of the plaintiff.
DELIVERY UP:
37. As already discussed, the infringed goods bearing falsified trademark/label/ trade dress/ colour scheme of the plaintiff CS (COMM.)/933/2022 Page 34 of 39 -35- company were seized by the Local Commissioner and were returned to the defendant on superdari. Therefore, the defendant is directed to delivery up all above seized infringed goods, besides all other impugned finished and unfinished materials bearing the impugned and violative trade mark/ label / trade dress / colour combination to the plaintiff company for the purpose of destruction and erasure.
DAMAGES:
38. Ld. Counsel of plaintiff submitted that punitive damages may be awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. In support of his submissions, Ld. Counsel of the plaintiff has relied upon following judgments:-
38.1 'Puma Se v. Ashok Kumar', having neutral citation 2023: DHC: 7696;
38.2 'Koninlijke Philips N. V. and Ors. v. Amazestore and Ors.' reported as 260 (2019) DLT 135;
38.3 'Christian Louboutin v. Ashish Bansal' reported as 2018 (75) PTC 353;
38.4 'Disney Enterprises Inc. v. Rajesh Bharti & Ors. ' reported as MANU/DE/0454/2013;
38.5 'Microsoft Corporation v. Rajendra Pawan & Ors. ' reported as MANU/DE/9851/2007; and 38.6 'Adidas AG & Ors. v. Praveen Kumar & Ors.' reported as MANU/DE/1708/2019 CS (COMM.)/933/2022 Page 35 of 39 -36-
39. However on bare perusal of the plaint, it reveals that no such relief is sought in the plaint. On similar facts, in case titled as Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. HRTN Cable Network, 2017 SCC Online Delhi 10943, wherein the defendants were ex parte and did not participate in the proceeding, counsel for the plaintiff had sought punitive damages, which was declined in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court in case titled 'Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Reckitt Benckiser India Limited', ILR (2014) II Delhi 1288.
40. However, as per law laid down by Hon'ble Division Bench in case of Hindustan Unilever Limited (supra), there is a need to see as to whether the case of plaintiff falls for exemplary damages.
41. As already noted above, the Local Commissioner, while executing the commission, found and seized infringed goods from premises of the defendant in their presence and handed over the same to them on superdari. It is evident from the said report that the defendant was manufacturing, stocking and selling/ passing off the infringed goods bearing impugned trade mark / label/ trade dress as that of the plaintiff' products, thereby causing wrongful loss to plaintiff company and would have earned illegal profit.
Further, if the seized infringed goods would have gone to the hands of the consumer/ general public, the reputation/goodwill of the plaintiff company would have gone down in the eyes of consumer/ general public as infringed goods were of average quality and were not CS (COMM.)/933/2022 Page 36 of 39 -37- up to the quality which is claimed by the plaintiff company.
42. In the case in hand, the defendant did not show up and participate in the proceedings in order to deprive the plaintiff to the benefit of rendition of accounts. Accordingly, keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case including the quantum of infringed goods bearing impugned trademarks / labels as found by Ld. Local Commissioner while executing the commission and the relevant averments appearing in Para No.35 of the amended plaint to the effect that the plaintiff came across impugned products of the defendant under the impugned Trade Mark/trade dress/ colour scheme in the months of January and April, 2018, whereas, the present suit has been filed in the month of January, 2019, the Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff company is entitled to exemplary damages quantified as ₹4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs only) to be recovered from the defendant. It is so ordered accordingly.
RELIEF:
43. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the Court is of the view that the plaintiff has been able to prove its case on the basis of preponderance of probability. Thus, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and the following reliefs are granted:-
43.1 Suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant qua permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendant by themselves as also through their individual proprietor/ partners, agents, CS (COMM.)/933/2022 Page 37 of 39 -38- representative, distributors, assigns, heirs, successors, stockists and all others acting for and on their behalf from manufacturing, marketing, using, selling, soliciting, importing, exporting, displaying, distributing, advertising or in any manner dealing in or soliciting or selling/ soliciting through online platforms or online websites or using the impugned trademark / trade dress/ colour scheme 'ERCAPYRINE and ENZAPYRINE' or any other word mark/ mark/ trade mark/ label/ trade dress/ colour scheme which may be identical with and/ or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's said trade mark / trade dress/ colour scheme 'ESGIPYRIN' in relation to similar goods, thereby infringing plaintiff's registered trademark, copyright and passing off their products as that of the plaintiff.
43.2 Suit is also decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant qua delivery up of all seized semi finished and finished articles besides all other impugned finished and unfinished materials bearing the impugned and violative trade mark/ label of plaintiff company and superdarinama is hereby cancelled.
43.3 Plaintiff is entitled to recover ₹4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs only) from the defendant towards damages; and 43.4 Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.CS (COMM.)/933/2022 Page 38 of 39 -39-
44. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
45. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.Digitally signed by VIDYA
VIDYA Announced in the open court PRAKASH PRAKASH Date:
on 12th Day of March, 2025. 2025.03.12 17:56:42 +0530 (VIDYA PRAKASH) DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02 PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI CS (COMM.)/933/2022 Page 39 of 39