Madras High Court
Cadila Healthcare Limited vs Wallace Pharmaceuticals Private ... on 17 December, 2018
Author: M.Sundar
Bench: M.Sundar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 17.12.2018
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
C.S.No.446 of 2014
and O.A.Nos.541 and 542 of 2014
Cadila Healthcare Limited
a Company registered under the
Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956
and having its registered office at
'Zydus Tower', Satellite Cross Road
Ahmedabad – 380 015
and having Branch Office at
First Floor, New No.24, Old No.16
Dr.Subbarayan Nagar
4th Street, Kodambakkam
Chennai – 600 024
Represented by Sr.General Manager [Legal]
Mr.Mehul Pathak
.. Plaintiff
Vs.
1.Wallace Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
3rd Floor, Dempo Trade Centre Building
Patto Plaza, EDC Complex
Panaji, Goa
and also at
B/307-312, Floral Deck Plaza
Off Central MIDC Road
Andheri [East]
Mumbai – 400 093.
2.Acme Lifescience
Near Baddi Industrial Area
Village Katha
Baddi
Dist. Solan [H.P.] - 173 205. .. Defendants
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
This Civil Suit is preferred, under Order VII Rule – 1 of Civil Procedure
Code, 1908 read with Order IV Rule 1 of O.S Rules and Sections 27, 134 and
135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 Praying to;
a) grant a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, by itself,
their servants, agents, distributors, or anyone claiming through them from
manufacturing, selling, advertising and offering for sale using the plaintiff's
registered Trade Mark MEXATE or any other mark including MEXT 7.5 F as
such or with or without prefix or suffix in any pharmaceutical product or in
any related goods manufactured and sold by the defendants or in any media
and use the same in invoices, letters heads and visiting cards or by using
any other trade mark which is in any way visually, or phonetically similar to
the plaintiff's registered Trade Mark MEXATE or in any manner infringing the
plaintiff's Registered Trade Mark No.520752.
b) grant a permanent injunction, restraining the Defendants, their
Partners, Proprietors, Directors, their employees, agents, stockiest, dealers
or others directly or indirectly involved, from in any manner using in
relation to any medicinal or pharmaceutical preparation, in manufacturing
or marketing the pharmaceutical product bearing the trademark “MEXT 7.5
F” or any other trademark which is deceptively or confusingly similar to the
plaintiff's trademark “MEXATE/MEXATE 7.5” so as to pass off the
defendants goods bearing the trademark “MEXT 7.5F” as and for the goods
manufactured by the plaintiff;
c) direct and decree the defendants to deliver to the plaintiff all the
goods, dies, labels, wrappers, packages, cartons, boxes, articles, literature
and all other materials bearing reference whatsoever with respect to the
offending trademark “MEXT 7.5 F” for destruction without compensation;
d) the defendants be ordered and directed to render true and
faithful accounts of the profits illegally earned by the defendant by using
http://www.judis.nic.in
3
the deceptively similar and confusing trade name MEXT 7.5F and a decree
for the said amount be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the
defendants;
e) direct the defendants to pay to the plaintiff the costs to the suit
and
f) pass such further or other order; as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
For Plaintiff : Ms.Revathy
for M/s.Gladys Daniel
For Defendants : Ms.Durga V Bhatt
JUDGMENT
Ms.Revathy, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for sole plaintiff and Ms.Durga V.Bhatt, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for both the defendants are before this Commercial Division.
2. Ms.Revathy, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for sole plaintiff submits that plaintiff has given instructions for withdrawal of this suit. Saying so, learned counsel has made an endorsement in the suit file which reads as follows:
http://www.judis.nic.in 4 'The plaintiff may be permitted to withdraw the suit as not pressed.
-sd/-
(for Counsel for Plaintiff) 17.12.2018.'
3. Learned counsel while reiterating the aforesaid endorsement submits that plaintiff is not insisting on refund of Court fee.
4. In the light of the endorsement and reiteration of the same, this suit is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, all interlocutory applications are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
17.12.2018 Index : Yes/No vsm/mp http://www.judis.nic.in 5 M.SUNDAR, J.
vsm/mp C.S.No.446 of 2014 and O.A.Nos.541 and 542 of 2014 17.12.2018 http://www.judis.nic.in