Delhi District Court
Hamdard National Foundation And Ors vs Sfpl Formulations And Ors on 28 February, 2025
DLCT010168872021
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL
COURT)-01,
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED BY: MR. SANJEEV KUMAR AGGARWAL
IN THE MATTER OF:
CS (COMM) NO. 5166/21
1. Hamdard National Foundation (India)
[through Javed Akhter, Authorized Signatory]
(A charitable society under the Indian Society Act)
Hamdard Building 2A/3 Asaf Ali Road,
New Delhi-110002
2. Hamdard Laboratories (India)
[through Javed Akhter, Authorized Signatory]
(Medicine Division)
(A trust under the Indian Trust Act)
2A/3 Asaf Ali Road
New Delhi-110002
... Plaintiffs
VERSUS
1. Swaraj Formulations Private Limited
(Through its Director / AR)
400, Arenja Corner
Plot No. 71, Sector-17
Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703
CS (Comm) No. 5166/21, Digitally signed
by SANJEEV
KUMAR
Hamdard National Foundation & Anr.Vs.SANJEEV
SFPL Formulations
KUMAR
AGGARWAL
Date:
& Anr.
AGGARWAL 2025.02.28
17:33:10 Page No. 1/36
+0530
Also at :
Swaraj Imperials, Plot No. 255
1st Floor, Sector-10, Kharghar
Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra
India-410210
Email : [email protected]
[email protected]
2. Bhrigu Pharma Private Limited
(Through its Director / AR)
Bhrigu Pharma Udhamgarh
Yamunagar, Haryana
India-135003
Also at :
700, Lakkarharn Gali
Jagadhri, Haryana
India-135003
Email : [email protected]
[email protected]
Ph. No. 7496054036
... Defendants
Date of Institution : 13.12.2021
Date of reserving judgment : 11.02.2025
Date of Judgment : 28.02.2025
CS (Comm) No. 5166/21,
Hamdard National Foundation & Anr.Vs. SFPL Formulations & Anr.
Page No. 2/36
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the suit for permanent injunction restraining defendant from infringement of trademark, passing off, trade dress, dilution, damages and rendition of accounts etc.
2. Brief facts as stated by plaintiffs in the plaint are that :-
1. That Plaintiff No.1 Hamdard National Foundation (India) and Plaintiff No.2, Hamdard Laboratories India (Medicine Division), both having its office at 2A/3 Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002. Mr. Javed Akhter is duly authorised to sign, verify and institute the present suit vide Special Power of Attorney dated 16.04.2021. The Plaintiff No.1 is the owner of the Registered Trademark SAFI, and Plaintiff No.2 is a licensee of Plaintiff No. 1.
2. That the Plaintiffs are a part of the well-known and reputed HAMDARD GROUP, established in the year 1906 by Hakeem Hafiz Abdul Majeed, a reputed Unani Medicinal Practitioner of his time. Presently, Plaintiff No.2 is using the trademark/house mark HAMDARD in relation to a wide range of products including inter-alia Unani and Ayurvedic medicines under an exclusive license from CS (Comm) No. 5166/21, Hamdard National Foundation & Anr.Vs. SFPL Formulations & Anr.Page No. 3/36
Plaintiff No.1, through a Deed of Agreement dated 11.08.1975 that is fully valid and subsisting. Some amongst well known products being manufactured and marketed by Plaintiffs under the trademark/house mark HAMDARD include SAFI, ROGAN BADAM SHIRIN, SUALIN, JOSHINA, CINKARA, NAUNEHAL, HAMDARD GRIPE WATER etc.
3. That the renowned Unani medicinal product SAFI is a product that is sold under the registered trademarks of Plaintiff No.1 used by Plaintiff No. 2 under a License Agreement, vide License Agreement dated 11th August 1975. SAFI is a Unani Medicine that serves a s natural blood purifier and is popular herbal remedy for skin disease such as acne vulgaris, boils, skin rashes, blemishes, urticaria etc. SAFI checks nose bleeding, cures constipation, correct indigestion and improves complexion.
4. That plaintiff No.1 is the registered proprietor of the trademark SAFI and the trademark SAFI is valid and subsisting on the Register of trademarks under the following trademark registrations:
CS (Comm) No. 5166/21, Hamdard National Foundation & Anr.Vs. SFPL Formulations & Anr.
Page No. 4/36
Trademark Trademark Class Date of Goods/services
No. Application Details
2419861 SAFI 5 05.05.1967 Medicinal
Preparation
293793 SAFI 5 24.01.1947 Medicinal
Preparation
599432 SAFI 5 15.06.1993 Medicinal
Preparation
5. That the plaintiffs submit that the packaging of the SAFI product is an original artistic work under Section (2) (c) of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 also registered under nos.
A-52736/1995 and A-111542/2014 in the name of Plaintiff no. 1. By virtue of prior, long and continuous use for over more than seven decades, the trademark SAFI exclusively associated with the goods emanating from the plaintiff's and held to be distinctive of Plaintiffs products excluding.
6. That the Plaintiffs' products under SAFI have been widely promoted inter alia through print and audio-visual media including television programmes, social networking CS (Comm) No. 5166/21, Hamdard National Foundation & Anr.Vs. SFPL Formulations & Anr.
Page No. 5/36 websites such as facebook under the Url
https://www.facebook.com/hamdardsafi, advertisements,
articles and write-ups appearing in leading newspapers, magazines, journals, etc. all of which enjoy a wide viewership, circulation and readership all over the India..
In addition, many people from all over the world including India access the Plaintiff's website www.hamdard.in and become acquainted with the Plaintiff's business, services and products which further contributed to the reputation and notoriety of SAFI of the Plaintiff.
7. That sometime in February, 2020, it came to the knowledge of the Plaintiffs that the Defendants had launched its blood purifier syrup bearing the mark M SAFI which is a deceptively and confusingly similar to the well known mark SAFI belonging to the Plaintiffs.
8. That the adoption of the mark M SAFI by the Defendants is much later than the Plaintiffs' adoption of the word mark SAFI in the year 1939 in India. COMPARISON OF THE PLAINTIFFS' AND DEFENDANTS' PRODUCT CS (Comm) No. 5166/21, Hamdard National Foundation & Anr.Vs. SFPL Formulations & Anr.
Page No. 6/36Plaintiff's products Defendants' product Label has parot green background Label has parrot green background in similar manner as that of CS (Comm) No. 5166/21, Hamdard National Foundation & Anr.Vs. SFPL Formulations & Anr.
Page No. 7/36Plaintiffs Mark SAFI is depited on the label Mark M SAFI is depicted in beneath that Blood purfier similar manner beneath that Blood mentioned in Red strip purfier mentioned Pictures of herbs with pot iare Pictures of herbs with similar pot appearing on the label are appearing on the label
9. That the conduct of the Defendants is totally dishonest and is solely motivated to create mass deception and confusion by running a trade/ business under an identical trademark.
The Defendants' activities are clearly motivated to encash upon the hard earned reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiffs' well known and recognized trademarks SAFI and its trade dress.
10. That the sale of spurious blood purifier tonics under M SAFI by the defendants is severely injurious to public health as the product of the defendants to not meet the high quality standards of the Plaintiffs' product under SAFI
11.That the defendants have deliberately adopted a deceptively similar mark M SAFI appearing in the blue CS (Comm) No. 5166/21, Hamdard National Foundation & Anr.Vs. SFPL Formulations & Anr.
Page No. 8/36background and on similar parrot green carton with lettering "herbal blood purifier" in an identical matter on red strip and white lettering. The general get up and layout of the Plaintiffs' SAFI product are unique and has been deliberately infringed by the Defendants. Hence, the plaintiffs have prayed for decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark M SAFI or any other name or label deceptively or confusingly similar to the plaintiffs registered trademark SAFI and passing off its goods under the trademark SAFI and the plaintiff has also sought decree of delivery up of all the goods of the defendant with the mark "SAFI" and render the accounts of profits earned by the defendants. Plaintiff has also sought decree of Rs. 20,00,000/- as damages as well as costs.
3. Initially, summons of the suit were sent to the defendants but none appeared on their behalf and they were proceeded ex- parte vide order dated 15.02.2024 and thereafter, plaintiff led ex- parte PE and examined its AR as PW1 and thereafter, final arguments were heard and when the case was fixed for clarification / judgment, the plaintiff has moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and file fresh address of defendant CS (Comm) No. 5166/21, Hamdard National Foundation & Anr.Vs. SFPL Formulations & Anr.
Page No. 9/36no.1 thereafter, notice of the said application was issued to the defendants. Subsequently, Director / AR of defendant no. 2 joined the proceedings through video conferencing and sought time to file reply to the said application and since defendant no. 1 did not appear despite service, it was proceeded ex-parte on 28.10.2024. Thereafter, while allowing the application of defendant no. 2 under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, WS was taken on record. Defendant no. 2 in its WS has taken preliminary objections that :-
i. That the registered office of defendant no. 2 is situated at Gari Udhamgarh, Haryana and the alleged false allegations of the plaintiff relate to Haryana, hence, Delhi Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit ii. That the present suit is not maintainable as neither defendant no. 2 had any dealing with plaintiff nor manufacturing nor dealing with any SAFI much less by the name of M SAFI nor defendant no. 2 is distributor of the plaintiff nor connection with the activities of the plaintiff in any manner whatsoever iii. That the defendant no. 2 did not receive any notice prior to the filing of the suit by the plaintiff and defendant no.2 has been unnecessarily dragged into present litigation. iv. No Act of defendant falls within the ambit of any violation of the Trade Mark Act 1999.
v. That the plaintiff has not properly valued the suit for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction, hence, the suit is liable to be rejected for want of court-fee CS (Comm) No. 5166/21, Hamdard National Foundation & Anr.Vs. SFPL Formulations & Anr.Page No. 10/36
4. On merits, it is stated by the defendant no. 2 that the suit of the plaintiff is wrong, false, fabricated, concocted and groundless and same is not maintainable against the defendant no. 2 and the plaintiff is not entitled to any decree against defendant no. 2. Thus, defendant no.1 prays for dismissal of the suit.
5. No replication filed by the plaintiff to the written statement of defendant no. 2.
6. From the pleadings of the parties and documents, following issues were framed vide order dated 23.12.2024 :-
1. Whether the defendants have infringed the trademark SAFI of plaintiff ? OPP
2. Whether the defendants have passed off their goods as the goods of the plaintiff by using the trademark M SAFI ? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction as prayed in para-A to D of the prayer clause ? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of rendition of accounts as prayed in para-E of the prayer clause ? OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of damages of Rs. 20 lakhs, if so against whom ? OPP
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of delivery of all goods as mentioned in para-G of the prayer clause ? OPP
7. Whether the cost is to be paid, if so & to whom ? Onus upon the parties CS (Comm) No. 5166/21, Hamdard National Foundation & Anr.Vs. SFPL Formulations & Anr.Page No. 11/36
8. Relief.
7. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff has only examined its authorized signatory Sh. Javed Akhter as PW1 and thereafter PE was closed vide order dated 15.01.2025.
8. On the other hand, in order to deny the claim of plaintiff, defendant no.2 has examined its director /AR Sh. Priyadarshi Sharma as DW2W1, who was cross examined at length and thereafter, he closed DE on 31.01.2025.
9. Final arguments were heard from Sh. Shivendra Pratap Singh & Sh. Navdeep Suhag, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and Sh. Ashok Kumar Rawal, Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 2.
10. I have considered the arguments and have gone through the record.
11. My issue wise findings are as under :- Issue No.1 to 3 :
1. Whether the defendants have infringed the trademark SAFI of plaintiff ? OPP
2. Whether the defendants have passed off their goods as the goods of the plaintiff by using the trademark M SAFI ? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction as prayed in para-A to D of the prayer clause ?
OPP
12. Since issues no. 1 to 3 are interconnected with each other, CS (Comm) No. 5166/21, Hamdard National Foundation & Anr.Vs. SFPL Formulations & Anr.
Page No. 12/36therefore, I shall decide the same together. The onus is upon the plaintiff to prove these issues. As stated above, in order to prove its case, the plaintiff has examined its AR Sh. Javed Akhter as PW1, who led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/C and he almost repeated the same contents as stated in the plaint, therefore, same are not repeated. He has also proved the following documents :-
1. Power of attorney issued in his favour by the plaintiff as Ex. PW1/1.
2. Power of attorney issued in his favour of Hamdard Laboratories India (Medicine Division) as Ex. PW1/2.
3. Status report obtained from the website of registry of trademark for registration of trade mark SAFI vide registration No. 241961, 293793, 599432 and 2532293 as Mark PW1/3 to Mark PW1/6 respectively.
4. Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act with respect to details of defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 from their websites as Ex. PW1/7.
5. Photocopy of Copyright certificates of Artistic Work of SAFI label having registration No. A-111542/2014 and A-52736/95 as Mark PW1/8 and Mark PW1/9 respectively.
6. Sale figure and advertisement figures of SAFI from year 2011-2012 to year 2020-2021 certified by CA JSRP & Associates as Ex. PW1/10.
7. Photocopies of 83 Invoices raised by plaintiff qua sale of its products including SAFI as Mark PW1/11 (Colly.).
8. Photocopies of various articles and promotional material on the product SAFI as well as various websites promoting and advertising SAFI as Mark PW1/12 (80 pages).
9. Photocopy of cease and desist notice dated 26.2.2020 address to defendant no.1 as Mark PW1/13.
CS (Comm) No. 5166/21, Hamdard National Foundation & Anr.Vs. SFPL Formulations & Anr.
Page No. 13/3610. Packaging of plaintiff's product SAFI as Ex. PW1/14.
11. Packaging of defendant's product MSAFI as Ex. PW1/15.
12. Legal proceedings certificates of the registration trademark word Mark SAFI which is having registration dt. 05.05.1967 and valid upto 05.05.2029 vide registration No. 241961 as Ex. PW1/16.
13. Legal proceedings certificates of the registration trademark word mark and device Mark SAFI which is having registration dt. 24.01.1974 and valid upto 24.01.2029 registration No. 293793 as Ex. PW1/17.
14. Legal proceedings certificates of the the registration of Word mark and Device mark SAFI "Artistic Work" which is having registration dt. 15.06.1993 and valid upto 15.06.2003 vide registration No. 599432 as Ex. PW1/18.
15. Legal proceedings certificates of the registration of trademark Word Mark and Device mark HAMDARD SAFI which is having registration dt. 16.05.2013 and valid upto 16.05.2033 vide registration No. 2532293 as Ex. PW1/19.
13. On the other hand, defendant no. 2 in order to disprove the case of plaintiff has examine Sh. Priyadarshi Sharma, its AR / Director as D2W1 who in his examination in chief led through affidavit Ex. D2W1/A has almost repeated the same contents as stated in WS by defendant no.2. He deposed that defendant no. 2 company is neither manufacturing nor dealing with any Safi much less by the name of M Safi nor defendant no. 2 is the distributor of the plaintiff. It is further stated that defendant no. 2 company deals in manufacturing and marketing of the ayurvedic products under the valid manufacturing licence no. 68-ism-ay (HR) dated 10.02.1993 issued by the concerned authorities. He CS (Comm) No. 5166/21, Hamdard National Foundation & Anr.Vs. SFPL Formulations & Anr.
Page No. 14/36has relied upon following documents :-
1. Copy of resolution dated 20.8.2024 appoint him as AR as Ex. D2W1/1.
2. Copy of licence No. 68-ism-ay (HR) dated 10.2.1993 issued by concerned authorities in favour of defendant no.2 as Mark D2W1/2 .
14. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that from the testimony of plaintiff's witness PW1 and documents, it is duly proved that the plaintiff No.1 is the owner of the Registered Trademark SAFI and Plaintiff No.2 is a licensee of Plaintiff No. 1, vide deed of agreement dated 11.08.1975 in class-5 qua medicinal preparation. He also argued that SAFI is used as an effective and trusted remedy against rectifying blood impurity, skin eruptions, pimples and boils, heat rashes and itching nose bleedings, chronic and temporary constipation, measles, burning sensation in urination, general lassitude etc., therefore, the adoption of trade mark M-SAFI shows that defendants have adopted the said trade mark with dishonest intention to cash the goodwill of plaintiff and has tried to pass off its goods as the goods of plaintiff, which is quite popular in the market for products of class-5 i.e. blood purifier. He further argued that defendant no. 2 is the manufacture of the said goods with the trademark M-SAFI for defendant no. 1, thus, the defendants have infringed the trademark of plaintiff, therefore, plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the said trademark.
15. On the other hand, learned counsel for defendant no.2 has CS (Comm) No. 5166/21, Hamdard National Foundation & Anr.Vs. SFPL Formulations & Anr.
Page No. 15/36argued that defendant no. 2 has no concern or connection with the activities of the defendant no.1 and defendant no. 2 has been unnecessarily dragged into the present litigation. He further argued that defendant no. 2 company is neither manufacturing nor dealing with any Safi much less by the name of M-Safi nor defendant no. 2 is the distributor of the plaintiff. He further argued that defendant no. 2 deals in manufacturing and marketing of the ayurvedic products under the valid manufacturing licence no. 68-ism-ay (HR) dated 10.02.1993 issued by the concerned authorities. He further argued that no product of Safi is being manufactured, marketed or sold by the defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 2 manufactures only herbal medicines and not ayurvedic medicine. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitle to any relief against defendant no.2.
16. I have consider the arguments and gone through the records.
17. Section 28(1) of the Trade Mark Act 1999, gives a right to registered proprietor of the trademark to use the same to the exclusion of others and also to protect the mark from infringement by third parties. Under Section 29(2) of the said Act, a registered trademark is infringed by a person who not being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which because of its identity with or similarity to the registered trademark and identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by such registered mark, in a manner which is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public or likely to have an association with the CS (Comm) No. 5166/21, Hamdard National Foundation & Anr.Vs. SFPL Formulations & Anr.
Page No. 16/36registered trademark. In Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories, (1965) 1 SCR 737, the Supreme Court set out the distinction between action for passing off and an action for infringement of a trademark and expounded the principles that:
(a) where two marks are identical no further question arises and the infringement is made out;
(b) when two marks are not identical, Plaintiff would have to establish that the mark of the Defendant so nearly resembles the Plaintiff's registered trademark that it is likely to deceive or cause confusion in relation to goods for which it is registered;
(c) Court must assess the degree of resemblance so as to discern the deceptive similarity of the impugned mark with the proprietor's registered mark and then come to a conclusion whether or not there is likelihood of confusion/association;
(d) resemblance may be phonetic, visual or in the basic idea represented by the Plaintiff's mark; and
(e) identification of essential features of the mark is in essence a question of fact and depends on the judgment of the Court, based on evidence before it as regards its usage in the trade.
18. Under Section 29(2) of the said Act, a registered trademark is infringed by a person who not being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which because of its identity with or similarity to CS (Comm) No. 5166/21, Hamdard National Foundation & Anr.Vs. SFPL Formulations & Anr.
Page No. 17/36the registered trademark and identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by such registered mark, in a manner which is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public or likely to have an association with the registered trademark. In Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories, (1965) 1 SCR 737, the Supreme Court set out the distinction between action for passing off and an action for infringement of a trademark and expounded the principles that:
(a) where two marks are identical no further question arises and the infringement is made out;
(b) when two marks are not identical, Plaintiff would have to establish that the mark of the Defendant so nearly resembles the Plaintiff's registered trademark that it is likely to deceive or cause confusion in relation to goods for which it is registered;
(c) Court must assess the degree of resemblance so as to discern the deceptive similarity of the impugned mark with the proprietor's registered mark and then come to a conclusion whether or not there is likelihood of confusion/association;
(d) resemblance may be phonetic, visual or in the basic idea represented by the Plaintiff's mark; and
(e) identification of essential features of the mark is in essence a question of fact and depends on the judgment of the Court, based on evidence before it as regards its usage in the trade.
CS (Comm) No. 5166/21, Hamdard National Foundation & Anr.Vs. SFPL Formulations & Anr.
Page No. 18/3619. As far as passing off is concerned, the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Cadila Health Care Ltd v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2001 (5) SCC 73, Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the test for passing off:-
35. Broadly stated, in an action for passing-off on the basis of unregistered trade mark generally for deciding the question of deceptive similarity the following factors are to be considered: (a) The nature of the marks i.e. whether the marks are word marks or label marks or composite marks i.e. both words and label works.
(b) The degree of resembleness between the marks, phonetically similar and hence similar in idea.
(c) The nature of the goods in respect of which they are used as trade marks.
(d) The similarity in the nature, character and performance of the goods of the rival traders.
(e) The class of purchasers who are likely to buy the goods bearing the marks they require, on their education and intelligence and a degree of care they are likely to exercise in purchasing and/or using the goods.
(f) The mode of purchasing the goods or placing orders for the goods.
(g) Any other surrounding circumstances which may be relevant in the extent of dissimilarity between the competing marks."
20. The principles relating to passing off have also been crystalised by the Supreme Court in Satyam Infoway v. Siffynet Solution Pvt. Ltd., (2004) 6 SCC 145 in the following manner:
"13. The next question is, would the principles of trade mark law and in particular those relating to passing off apply? An action for passing off, as the phrase "passing off" itself suggests, is to restrain the defendant from passing off its goods or services to the public as that of the plaintiff's. It is an action not only to preserve the reputation of the plaintiff but also to safeguard the public. The defendant must have sold its goods or offered its services in a manner which has deceived or would be likely to deceive the public into thinking that the defendant's goods or services are the plaintiff's. The action is normally available to the owner of a distinctive trade mark and the person who, if the word or name is an invented one, invents and uses it. If two trade rivals claim to have individually invented the same mark, then the trader who is able to establish prior user will succeed. The question is, as has been aptly put, who gets these first? It is not essential for the plaintiff to prove long user to establish reputation in a passing- off action. It would depend upon the volume of sales and extent of advertisement CS (Comm) No. 5166/21, Hamdard National Foundation & Anr.Vs. SFPL Formulations & Anr.Page No. 19/36
14. The second element that must be established by a plaintiff in a passing-off action is misrepresentation by the defendant to the public. The word misrepresentation does not mean that the plaintiff has to prove any mala fide intention on the part of the defendant. Of course, if the misrepresentation is intentional, it might lead to an inference that the reputation of the plaintiff is such that it is worth the defendant's while to cash in on it. An innocent misrepresentation would be relevant only on the question of the ultimate relief which would be granted to the plaintiff [Cadbury Schweppes v. Pub Squash, 1981 RPC 429 : (1981) 1 All ER 213 : (1981) 1 WLR 193 (PC); Erven Warnink v. Townend, 1980 RPC 31 : (1979) 2 All ER 927 : 1979 AC 731 (HL)] . What has to be established is the likelihood of confusion in the minds of the public (the word "public" being understood to mean actual or potential customers or users) that the goods or services offered by the defendant are the goods or the services of the plaintiff. In assessing the likelihood of such confusion the courts must allow for the "imperfect recollection of a person of ordinary memory" [Aristoc v. Rysta, 1945 AC 68 : (1945) 1 All ER 34 (HL)] .
15. The third element of a passing-off action is loss or the likelihood of it." (Emphasis Supplied). In V-Guard (supra), relied upon by the defendant, while holding that infringement under Section 29(2) is not made out as the competing goods are not similar, the Court, nevertheless, held that the defendants therein were passing off their goods as those of the plaintiff. The relevant extracts from the judgment are set out below:
" 56. In the context of passing off, once again a crucial question arises as to why and with what intent the Defendant adopted the word PEBBLE as a part of its mark and the answer in my prima facie view could only be to confuse an unwary purchaser and create an impression that the purchaser is buying the goods of the Plaintiff. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff rightly contended that in the absence of any plausible reason for the Defendant to adopt the word PEBBLE, the only inference that can be drawn is that the intent was to pass off its goods as those of the Plaintiff. Defendant, as claimed in the reply, has an enviable and formidable reputation and does not need to ride over the goodwill of the Plaintiff. If that be so, it intrigues the Court as to why the Defendant adopted the word PEBBLE in addition to its house mark CROMPTON. In this context, I may refer to a few lines from the passage in the case of Thomas Bear and Sons (India) Ltd. v. Prayag Narain, (1941) 58 RPC 25, wherein Lord Langdale observed:
"A man is not to sell his own goods under the pretence that they are the goods of another man; he cannot be permitted to practise such a deception nor to use the means which contribute to that end. He cannot, therefore, be allowed to use names, marks, letters or other indicia, by which he may induce purchasers to believe that the goods which he is selling are the manufacture of another person.""
CS (Comm) No. 5166/21, Hamdard National Foundation & Anr.Vs. SFPL Formulations & Anr.
Page No. 20/36A reference in this regard may also be made to the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Good Life Industries v. J R J Foods Pvt Ltd., MANU/GJ/3045/2022. In the aforesaid case, an injunction was denied on the basis that the defendant was the registered proprietor of the mark. However, injunction was granted on the basis of passing off. The relevant extracts with regard to the passing off in Good Life Industries(supra) are set out below "17. The plaintiff has filed Suit for infringement as well as for passing off action. Even if the defence of the defendant that it being registered owner of the disputed trademark, and therefore, no infringement action would lie against it, is accepted, for the sake of argument, then in that case also, the similarity between the two marks, which is likely to cause confusion in the public at large, can be considered for protecting the right of the plaintiff, under the head of passing off action. Passing of action has its origin, as an action in tort to restrain the wrongful conduct of the defendant in passing off his goods as the goods of the plaintiff. This might be done by using the trade name, trademark or other get-up of the plaintiff so as to induce any potential purchaser the belief that his goods or business were those of the plaintiff's. The tort list in the mis-representation by the defendant. Mis-representation is aimed at the potential buyers of the goods or the services, who are invited to buy goods believing that the goods are of the plaintiff. This might be done through confusion or deceitful use of the trade name or mark with or other indication used by the plaintiff in respect of such goods or service. The passing off action is to create an actionable wrong based on the border principles of law that nobody has any right to represent his goods or business as the goods or business of somebody else. The principle is that "trading must not only be honest but must not even unintentionally be dis-honest". The purpose of passing off action is to protect commercial goodwill and to ensure that the purchaser are not exploited and dis-honest trading is prevented. For that, the plaintiff must establish that his business or goods have acquired the reputation. Whether the defendants goods are marked with the trademark of the plaintiff or made-up or described as calculated to mislead the ordinary purchaser, it is thus tendency to mislead or confuse which forms the gist of passing off action. There is no need to establish fraud or actual deception or actual damages in such cases. In passing off action it is necessary to prove that an ordinary person is likely to buy goods in a belief that the goods are that of plaintiff, though it is not necessary to show that actual sale took place.
18. It is well settled that while considering the likelihood of confusion in the mind of a purchaser, the wisdom of an ordinary person is to be taken into consideration. If an ordinary person exercising ordinary caution is likely to be confusion or is likely to be CS (Comm) No. 5166/21, Hamdard National Foundation & Anr.Vs. SFPL Formulations & Anr.
Page No. 21/36deceived into buying the product of the defendant, believing the same to be originating from the plaintiff, the injunction must follow. Intention to pass of is neither necessary nor is required to be shown. There is no necessity to prove actual damage to the plaintiff. Of course, the plaintiff has to establish that he has build-up good reputation and goodwill on the trademark. The plaintiff has also to establish deception similar so as to cause confusion in the minds of consumer and also likely suffering of substantial damages either to his business financially or to the reputation and goodwill of his trademark."
19.In Mother Sparsh Baby Care v. Aayush Gupta and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1061, relied upon by the plaintiffs, both the plaintiff and the defendant therein were registered proprietors of the mark 'Plant Powered', though the plaintiff was the prior adopter and user. While granting an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff, the Court observed that both the plaintiff and the defendant were selling the same kind of products and since the plaintiff was the prior adopter and user of the said mark, the defendant's user of the said mark was not bona fide."
21. In Devagiri Farms Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Kapur & Anr FAO (OS) 247/2014 date of order 01.2.2016 (DHC) where in Hon,ble High Court granted injunction on the ground of similar trade dress. The relevant para no.6, 7 and 8, are reproduced as under :-
"6. From a perusal of the trade dress adopted by the appellant, which date of adoption is concededly years after the Kapurs did so, it is apparent that the appellant is using the same share of Maroon and Blue colour in the backdrop with a floral design as are the Kapurs; albeit the floral print being different, but with same golden yellow colour. The third shade, being a Green colour, forming the backdrop hue of the third trade dress is also with a floral design; albeit the floral print being different in design as also colour. For the fourth colour used, there is complete identity inasmuch as the same shade of Red without any floral design is used by the appellant.
7. Tested on the well recognized touchstone of the principle of deception, it would be apparent to the naked eye that any purchaser of tea with the usual imperfect recollection to which all humans are CS (Comm) No. 5166/21, Hamdard National Foundation & Anr.Vs. SFPL Formulations & Anr.Page No. 22/36
prone to, would be deceived when she comes across the tea packaged by the appellant.
8. It is the overall get up and similarity which has to be seen and not the minor variations because it is similarity which strikes and not the dissimilarities which distinguish when an ordinary person recollects an object seen in the past."
22. In Marico Limited vs Mr. Mikesh Kumar CS(comm) 1596/2016 dt.27.08.2016 this Hon.ble High Court granted injunction against infringement of trade mark despite the fact that trade mark of both plaintiff and defendant were different i.e. trade mark of plaintiff was "Parachute oil" and trade mark of defendant was "Everest oil" on the basis of similarity in trade design. The relevant para is as under:
44. Upon comparison of the aforesaid two bottles, it is evident that the background colour (same shade of blue Pantone 285C), bottle size, cap shape, nozzle, flag device, coconut tree, broken coconut device, indentation, print as well as description in white font, are very similar if not identical. This Court is of the prima facie opinion that if the two products are placed next to each other, it would be apparent that each and every important feature of the plaintiff‟s PARACHUTE Coconut Oil product had been copied by the defendants for their EVEREST Coconut Oil product. In the present case, the resemblance in get up and trade dress between the two products is so close that it can hardly occur except by deliberate imitation. In fact, this Court is of the prima facie view that if the two rival products were kept on a CS (Comm) No. 5166/21, Hamdard National Foundation & Anr.Vs. SFPL Formulations & Anr.Page No. 23/36
display shelf, it may be well-nigh impossible for a reasonable consumer to tell which product belongs to whom. Consequently, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the defendants have copied the most relevant, material and essential features of the plaintiff‟s product in an attempt to pass off its products as that of the plaintiff's.
45.*** 46*** 47*** 48 ***
49. In fact, this Court is of the prima facie view that not only are the three elements of a passing off action namely, the reputation of goods, possibility of deception and likelihood of damages established in the present case, but that the adoption by the defendants of the said trade mark and trade dress was in bad faith. Accordingly, the contention of the defendants that they were honest concurrent users is contrary to facts.
A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF INFRINGEMENT IS MADE OUT INASMUCH AS THE DEFENDANTS HAVE COPIED THE PLAINTIFF‟S REGISTRATIONS. IN FACT, NOT ONLY HAS THE BOTTLE SHAPE, COLOUR AND LABELING BEEN COPIED BY THE DEFENDANTS, BUT ALSO THE INDIVIDUAL ELEMENTS WHICH ARE SUBJECT MATTER OF INDEPENDENT REGISTRATION. SECTION 17 OF THE TRADE MARKS ACT, 1999, APPLIES TO THE PRESENT CASE AND GODFREY PHILLIPS INDIA LIMITED (SUPRA) JUDGMENT, IS INAPPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. "
CS (Comm) No. 5166/21, Hamdard National Foundation & Anr.Vs. SFPL Formulations & Anr.
Page No. 24/3623. Now revering back to the case, on perusal of cross examination of PW1, it is evident no suggestion has been given to him that plaintiff is not the owner of trade mark SAFI. Neither defendant no.2 has disputed the documents proved by PW1, whereas defendant no.1 did not appear despite service, hence plaintiff through the testimony of PW1 and documents mentioned above has been able to satisfactorily demonstrate that ever since the adoption of the aforesaid trademark, plaintiff has been using the trade mark SAFI both word mark and device mark regularly and continuously and has promoted the said mark along with its goods through publications, broadcast, print/visual media, advertisement, etc. Thus, over the past several years, the plaintiff has acquired an enviable goodwill and reputation in respect of its goods/services under the aforesaid trademark/trade name in India.
24. On analyzing the testimony of defendant/ D2W1 it is evident that he has not disputed that plaintiffs is registered owner of trade mark SAFI is registered in class-5 vide registration no. 2419861 vide application dt. 05.05.1967, registration no. 293793 vide application dt. 24.01.1947 and registration no. 599432 vide application dt. 15.06.1993 qua medicinal preparation.
25. Now on comparing the trade mark SAFI, which is of plaintiff and mark M-SAFI which is of defendant no. 1, I found that defendant no. 1 trademark is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark SAFI as the defendant no. 1 has used the CS (Comm) No. 5166/21, Hamdard National Foundation & Anr.Vs. SFPL Formulations & Anr.
Page No. 25/36word "SAFI" with only prefix "M". Both are phonetically and visually almost similar.
26. Further, on perusal of packaging/ wrapper of both plaintiff and defendant no.1 product M SAFI, I found that scheme of colour combination is also almost similar i.e,. using colour green predominantly. Both product SAFI and MSAFI are blood purifier product. Hence in my view defendant Trade Mark is deceptively similar to plaintiff trade Mark.The SAFI is a house hold name and in my view, any person of common intelligence can get confused with the trademark trade mark M-SAFI that it is another product of plaintiff company. I am fully agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for plaintiff that the defendant no. 1 has adopted the said trademark with the intention to cause confusion in the mind of public that they are purchasing the goods of the plaintiff and tried to encash the goodwill of plaintiff. I am also agreed with the contention of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that defendant by using the Trade Mark "MSAFI" for its product not only causing loss to the plaintiff but to the public at large as they purchase the product considering same to be of plaintiff. Hence, considering all the facts and circumstances, and above said judgements, in my view, defendant no.1 has infringed the trademark of the plaintiff and has passed off its goods as the goods of the plaintiff, therefore, I held that plaintiffs are entitled for decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant no.1, its proprietors or partners or directors as the case may be, their principal officers, servants, agents and all others acting for and on behalf of the Defendant no.1 from using the mark M CS (Comm) No. 5166/21, Hamdard National Foundation & Anr.Vs. SFPL Formulations & Anr.
Page No. 26/36SAFI and/ or any other name or label deceptively or confusingly similar to the registered trademark SAFI of the Plaintiffs under Nos. 241961, 293793 and 599432 respectively in class 5, in any manner and for any goods and services.
27. As far as defendant no. 2 is concerned, the defendant no.2 has denied of manufacturing the MSAFI product for defendant no.1. in WS. Therefore onus was upon the plaintiff to prove that defendant had manufactured the product MSAFI.
28. On perusal of the testimony of PW1, I found that he only depose that goods with the trademark M-SAFI was manufactur- ing by the defendant no. 2 on the basis of wrapper of MSAFI EXPW1/ 8 on which name and address of the defendant no. 2 is mentioned as manufacturer but the defendant no. 2 has denied that it has ever manufactured the goods for the defendant no. 1 with the trademark M-SAFI. In his cross examination he admit- ted the suggestion that thery have not physically visited to the factory / office / any other place belonging to defendant No. 2 to verify whether defendant No. 2 is manufacturing the goods with the trademark SAFI and filed the case only on the basis of docu- ment Ex. PW1/15. They have not appointed any local commis- sioner for inspecting the office / factory / any other place of de- fendant No. 2 for verifying whether defendant No. 2 is manufac- turing the goods with the trademark M-SAFI or not. Hence since no inspection has been carried out by the plaintiff to the premises of defendant no. 2 either through its own official or it has moved an application to get appointed local commissioner to inspect the CS (Comm) No. 5166/21, Hamdard National Foundation & Anr.Vs. SFPL Formulations & Anr.
Page No. 27/36premises of the defendant no.2 to establish that defendant no. 2 was manufacturing the goods with the trademark M-SAFI for de- fendant no. 1.
29. As far as testimony of D2W1 is concerned, he has categor- ically deposed in his testimony that defendant no. 2 has neither any dealing with plaintiff nor manufacturing any goods for de- fendant no.1 nor dealing with any Saifi much less by the name of M Saifi nor defendant no. 2 is distributor of the plaintiff nor con- nection with the activities of the plaintiff any any manner what- soever.
In his cross examination he depose that they manufacture medicine and also sell them. They manufacture medicine in the trade name Bhrigu Pharma and the trademarks are "Belive syrup", "Evotone", "Btone P". There are around 100 trademarks. All these trademarks are owned by Bhrigu Pharma. They do not manufacture medicine for other companies. They have never manufactured medicine for any other company since its inception. He came to know about the present case on 20.8.2024. Defendant Bhrigu Pharma was never served prior to 20.8.2024 about the present case. He does not know who is the manufacturer and seller marketed of product M-SAFI when it was put wrapper of product M-SAFI Ex. PW1/8. He deposed that though on the wrapper of M-SAFI Ex. PW1/8 the address mentioned Bhrigu Pharma, Garhi Udhamgarh, Haryana is of his firm's address and the licence number 68 (ISMAYHR) is his firm's licence number but vol. Stated that said product has not CS (Comm) No. 5166/21, Hamdard National Foundation & Anr.Vs. SFPL Formulations & Anr.
Page No. 28/36been manufactured by his firm. He further deposed that he has not given any licence for manufacturing of product for the year 2019. He further deposed that they have manufactured only herbal medicines whereas Hamdard manufacture Unani medicine. In these circumstances, I found that nothing much has come out in the cross examination of D2W1 to disbelieve that defendant no. 2 is manufacturer of M-SAFI for defendant no. 1.
30. It cannot be ruled out that defendant no. 1 might have mentioned name of Bhrigu Pharma as manufacturer without the consent of the defendant no. 2 but same does not prove defendant no. 2 is manufacturer of M-SAFI, therefore, I held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that defendant no. 2 has manufactured the medicine with the trademark M-SAFI and thus, infringed the trade mark of plaintiff or pass off its goods as goods of plaintiff. However since defendant no.2 name has been used as manufacturer of product MSAFI and defendant no. 2 has specifically stated that neither it is a manufacturer of M-SAFI nor has any right qua M-SAFI, therefore, I held that plaintiffs are entitled for decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant no.2, its proprietors or partners or directors as the case may be, their principal officers, servants, agents and all others acting for and on behalf of the Defendant no.2 from using the mark M SAFI and/ or any other name or label deceptively or confusingly similar to the registered trademark SAFI of the Plaintiffs under Nos. 241961, 293793 and 599432 respectively in class 5, in any manner and for any goods and services. Issues no. 1 to 3 are decided accordingly.
CS (Comm) No. 5166/21, Hamdard National Foundation & Anr.Vs. SFPL Formulations & Anr.
Page No. 29/36Issue No. 4 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of rendi- tion of accounts as prayed in para-E of the prayer clause ? OPP
31. As far as rendition of account is concern, the defendant no.1 stopped appearing and stay away from the present proceed- ings so as to thwart any enquiry into their account for determina- tion of damages. As a result, no inquiry into their accounts could be conducted, for this court to pass an order of rendition of ac- counts of profits and delivery up, so as to compensate the plain- tiff for the extent of damages suffered by them. But, that alone would not be a deterrent. Merely because the defendant no.1 has deliberately elected to stay away from the court proceedings, cannot be a ground to permit them to reap the benefits of evading the suit proceedings and its outcome. In my view since defendant no.1 is not present no purpose would be served by directing de- fendant no.1 to render its account as he will not render the same willfully and it would be impossible for plaintiff to get the same and thus calculate the profit earned by defendant no.1 by selling infringed goods. Hence, I am not passing decree of rendition of accounts.
Issues no. 5 : "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of damages of Rs. 20 lakhs, if so against whom ? OPP"
32. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff stresses the fact that the plaintiff is not only entitled to the relief of permanent injunction but also for a decree of damages against the defendant towards the loss of sales, reputation and goodwill of its trademark caused CS (Comm) No. 5166/21, Hamdard National Foundation & Anr.Vs. SFPL Formulations & Anr.
Page No. 30/36by their illegal activities.
33. In view of my aforesaid findings that defendant no.1 has infringed the plaintiff's trademark. As noted above, the defendant no.1 did not choose to appear and stay away from the present proceedings so as to thwart any enquiry into their account for de- termination of damages. As a result, no inquiry into their ac- counts could be conducted, for this court to pass an order of ren- dition of accounts of profits and delivery up, so as to compensate the plaintiff for the extent of damages suffered by them. But, that alone would not be a deterrent. Merely because the defendant no.1 has deliberately elected to stay away from the court pro- ceedings, cannot be a ground to permit him to reap the benefits of evading the suit proceedings and its outcome. In my view since defendant no.1 is not present no purpose would be served by di- recting defendant to render its account as he will not render the same willfully and it would be impossible for plaintiff to get the same and thus calculate the profit earned by defendant by selling infringed goods. Hence, I am not passing decree of rendition of accounts.
34. The court is mindful of the fact that in such a situation where the defendant choose to stay away from the court proceed- ings, he should not be permitted to enjoy the benefits of such an evasion. Any view to the contrary would result in a situation where a compliant defendant who appears in court pursuant to summons being issued, participates in the proceedings and sub- mits his account books, etc., for assessment of damages, would CS (Comm) No. 5166/21, Hamdard National Foundation & Anr.Vs. SFPL Formulations & Anr.
Page No. 31/36end up on a worse footing, vis-à-vis a defendant who chooses to conveniently stay away after being served with the summons in the suit. That was certainly not the intention of the Statute. Section 135 (1) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 provides that relief that may be granted in any suit for infringement of or for passing off includes injunction and at the option of the plain- tiff, either damages or an account of profits. The plaintiff in the present case has opted for claiming damages and has established beyond doubt that it has suffered damages on account of the con- duct of the defendant which are a result of infringement of their trademark and copyright.
35. It is well settled that damages in cases like the present one must be awarded and a defendant, who elects stay away from the court proceedings, should not be permitted to enjoy the benefits of staying away from the said proceedings. In the case of Microsoft Corporation v. Rajendra Pawar & Anr. reported as 2008 (36) PTC 697 (Del.), considering the aspect of punitive damages, it was held as below:-
"22. Perhaps it has now become a trend of sorts, especially in matters pertaining to passing off, for the defending party to evade Court proceedings in a systematic attempt to jettison the relief sought by the Plaintiff. Such flagrancy of the Defendant's conduct is strictly deprecatory, and those who recklessly indulge in such shenanigans must do so at their peril, for it is now an inherited wisdom that evasion of Court proceedings does not de facto tantamount to escape from liability. Judicial Process has its own way of bringing to task such erring parties whilst at the same time ensuring CS (Comm) No. 5166/21, Hamdard National Foundation & Anr.Vs. SFPL Formulations & Anr.Page No. 32/36
that the aggrieved party who has knocked the doors of the Court in anticipation of justice is afforded with adequate relief, both in law and in equity. It is here that the concept of awarding punitive damages comes into perspective.
23. Punitive damages are a manifestation of equitable relief granted to an aggrieved party, which, owing to its inability to prove actual damages, etc., could not be adequately compensated by the Court.
Theoretically as well as practically, the practice of awarding of punitive damages may be rationalized as preventing under compensation of the aggrieved party, allowing redress for undetectable torts and taking some strain away from the criminal justice system. Where the conduct of the erring party is found to be egregiously invidious and calculated to mint profits for his own self, awarding punitive damages prevents the erring party from taking advantage of its own wrong by escaping prosecution or detection."
(emphasis added)
36. In view of above discussion, I held that plaintiff is entitled to damages from defendant no.1 only for infringing trademark of plaintiff. Since no evidence has been led by the plaintiff how much loss in term of money has been suffered by the plaintiff or the unlawful gain is earned by defendant no.1, therefore taking guess work, I pass a decree for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (₹ Five lakh only) by way of punitive /exemplary damages against the defendant no.1. The damages awarded shall be payable by the defendant no. 1, within a period of three months from the date of passing of the judgment failing which, the said amount shall CS (Comm) No. 5166/21, Hamdard National Foundation & Anr.Vs. SFPL Formulations & Anr.
Page No. 33/36carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of the decree, till realization. Further, the plaintiff is also entitled to costs of the suit.
Issue No. 6 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of de- livery of all goods as mentioned in para-G of the prayer clause ? OPP
37. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff stresses the fact that the plain- tiff is not only entitled to the relief of permanent injunction also entitled to the decree for delivery of all infringed material as prayed in para-g of the prayer direct the defendant no.1 to hand over / deliver all the infringing finished/unfinished materials bearing the plaintiff's trademark to plaintiff.
38. In view of my findings in above issues that defendant no.1 has infringed the plaintiff's trademark/copyright, therefore, I hold that defendant no. 1 is liable to hand over the goods to the plaintiff having infringed trademark of plaintiff. Further, in my view, defendant no.1 is also liable to disclose the names of the persons who are engaged in selling, storing and supplying of the infringed goods of plaintiff's trademark and further, hand over all the documents and information related to the transaction done by them with respect to the said goods. Issue No. 6 is decided ac- cordingly.
Issue No.7 : "Whether the cost is to be paid, if so & to whom ? Onus upon the parties"
39. As per Section 35 CPC as amended by Commercial Courts CS (Comm) No. 5166/21, Hamdard National Foundation & Anr.Vs. SFPL Formulations & Anr.
Page No. 34/36Act provides for payment of cost which include fess and expenses of witnesses, legal fees and expenses and any other expenses. Since plaintiff is only able to prove that defendant no.1 has infringed its trade mark therefore I held that plaintiff is entitle to recover actual costs from defendant no.1 only.
Relief
40. In view of findings of aforesaid issues, I pass a decree for permanent injunction restraining defendant no.1 &2, its proprietors or partners or directors as the case may be, their principal officers, servants, agents and all others acting for and on behalf of the Defendant no.1 from using the mark M SAFI and/ or any other name or label deceptively or confusingly similar to the registered trademark SAFI of the Plaintiffs under Nos. 241961, 293793 and 599432 respectively in class 5, in any manner and for any goods and services.
41. Further, I pass a decree directing the defendant no.1 to hand over / deliver all the infringing finished/unfinished materials bearing the plaintiff's trademark to plaintiff.
42. Further, I pass a decree for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- ( ₹ Five lakh only) by way of punitive /exemplary damages against the defendant no.1. The damages awarded shall be payable, within a period of three months from the date of passing of the judgment failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of the decree, till realization. The plaintiff is also entitled to actual costs of the suit.
CS (Comm) No. 5166/21, Hamdard National Foundation & Anr.Vs. SFPL Formulations & Anr.
Page No. 35/3643. Suit is decreed accordingly. Decree sheet be prepared after payment of deficit court fee, if any.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed
Pronounced in open Court SANJEEV by SANJEEV
KUMAR
KUMAR AGGARWAL
on 28.02.2025 AGGARWAL Date: 2025.02.28
17:34:37 +0530
(Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Central, Tis Hazari Courts,Delhi.
CS (Comm) No. 5166/21,
Hamdard National Foundation & Anr.Vs. SFPL Formulations & Anr.
Page No. 36/36