Delhi District Court
Mankind Pharma Ltd vs Aria Life Science Private Limited on 28 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DR. NEERA BHARIHOKE
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL) COURT-06
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
CNR No.DLSE01-004062-2021
CS (Comm) 226/2021
Mankind Pharma Limited
Registered office At
208, Okhla Industrial Estate-III
New Delhi-110020.
...Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Aria Life Sciences Private Limited
Registered office at
F-01 C-86 B,
Nand Kishore Pareek Marg,
Bapu Nagar,
Jaipur 302015.
Also At:
8/301 Vasupujye Tower,
Ahmedabad-380013,
Email ID: [email protected].
....Defendant No. 1
2. Anonn Nutra LLP
A1 Ratan Industrial Area,
Gram Harsuliya Phagi Road,
Jaipur 303005.
Email ID: [email protected]
.....Defendant No. 2
NEERA
CS(Comm) No.226/21 Mankind Pharma Ltd. Vs. Aria Life Science Private Limited Page 1 of 14 BHARIHOKE
Digitally signed by
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.03.28
15:27:16 +0530
Date of institution of the suit : 26.04.2021
Date of transfer of the case to this court : 19.10.2022
Date on which judgment was reserved : 27.03.2025
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 28.03.2025
JUDGMENT
SUIT FOR RELIEF OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION FOR PASSING OFF, INFRINGEMENT OR TRADE MARK, RENDITION OF ACCOUNTS, DELIVERY UP ETC.
1. By way of this judgment, I shall decide the suit of the Plaintiff filed for relief of permanent injunction for passing off, infringement of trade mark, rendition of accounts, delivery up etc. CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF AS SET UP IN THE PLAINT
2. Brief facts of the case as stated by the Plaintiff in the plaint are that:
a. The Plaintiff is the 5th largest pharmaceutical company of India that was incorporated as a Private Limited Company in the year 1991 and subsequently converted to a public limited company which is involved in manufacturing and/or marketing medicinal, pharmaceutical and veterinary preparations under various well- known brand name.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS(Comm) No.226/21 Mankind Pharma Ltd. Vs. Aria Life Science Private Limited Page 2 of 14 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.28 15:27:25 +0530 b. History of the goods sold under mark LONGIFENE can be traced back to July 13, 1959 when a company organized under the laws of Belgium namely Union Chimique Belge S.A. of 61 Avenue Lousie, Brussels, Belgium applied for the mark LONGIFENE in class 5 under number 191096 with respect to pharmaceutical veterinary and sanitary substances, especially drugs for pharmaceutical purposes, material for bandaging, disinfectants, preparations for killing weeds and destroying vermin, and more particularly, a pharmaceutical preparation for the treatment of allergic afflictions in India. The mark was subsequently registered on September 17, 1960.
c. On April 22, 1963, the mark LONGIFENE was assigned to UCB (Union Chimique-Chemische Bedrijven) S.A. of 4, Chaussee De Charleroi, Saint-Gilles-Lez Brussels, Belgium. On May 30, 1973, UCB S.A. Subsequently changed its name and address to UCB, A Societe Anonyme and the new name was recorded with the Registrar of Trade marks and on May 5, 1998, the new address Allee Da La Recherche, 60, B-1070 Bruxelles, Belgium was recorded with the Registrar.
d. On May 31, 2007, the mark LONGIFENE was assigned to UCB Pharma, S.A. On January 15, 2010, the mark LONGIFENE was assigned to the Plaintiff, Mankind Pharma Limited. On February 23, 2010, the request was duly filed before the Registrar to record NEERA BHARIHOKE CS(Comm) No.226/21 Mankind Pharma Ltd. Vs. Aria Life Science Private Limited Page 3 of 14 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.28 15:27:31 +0530 Mankind Pharma Limited as the subsequent proprietor of the mark.
e. As of today, the trade mark LONGIFENE is valid and subsisting in the records of the Registrar of Trade Marks.
f. Plaintiff came across the trade mark LONGIGAIN-A of the defendants in respect of medicinal and pharmaceuticals preparations wherein defendant no. 1 is involved in marketing and selling of pharmaceutical preparations and defendant no. 2 is involved in the manufacturing of goods under the impugned mark.
g. The goods of the Plaintiff and defendant are used for diametrically different purposes. While the goods under the mark LONGIFENE contains Buclizine which is medicine used to treat various allergic conditions whereas goods under the mark LONGIGAIN-A are appetite stimulants.
h. On December 28, 2020, Plaintiff served a cease-and-desist notice to both the defendants demanding interalia to refrain using the trade name/trade mark LONGIGAIN-A/LONGIGAIN to which both the defendants did not bother to reply.
i. On April 16, 2021, Plaintiff found that on March 27, 2021, defendant no. 1 had filed application under number 4925164 for NEERA BHARIHOKE CS(Comm) No.226/21 Mankind Pharma Ltd. Vs. Aria Life Science Private Limited Page 4 of 14 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.28 15:27:37 +0530 registering the impugned mark LONGIGAIN-A on a proposed to be used basis before the Registrar of Trade Marks.
j. The Defendants are manufacturing and/or marketing and selling the same goods in the market under the impugned mark LONGIGAIN-A/LONGIGAIN, which is visually, phonetically and structurally similar to the earlier registered trade mark of the Plaintiff.
k. Defendants made a deliberate and malafide attempt to cash upon the goodwill of the Plaintiff.
l. Defendants' deceptively similar impugned mark is likely to cause confusion amongst the customers and thereby inflicting upon the Plaintiff grave loss and injury. By reason of the aforesaid wrongful and illegal acts of the Defendant, the Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer irreparable loss and injury.
3. Hence, the present suit was filed. The Plaintiff had filed alongwith the suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC for grant of ad-interim injunction in its favour and against the Defendants which was allowed in the facts and circumstance of the case narrated by the Plaintiff. Ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants vide order dt. 30.04.2021 and it was directed that Defendants, either by themselves or through their dealers, NEERA BHARIHOKE CS(Comm) No.226/21 Mankind Pharma Ltd. Vs. Aria Life Science Private Limited Page 5 of 14 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.28 15:27:42 +0530 distributors, stockiest, agents, associates, employees, servants, and/or assigns are restrained from infringing the trade mark of Plaintiff by selling and advertising or otherwise dealing with products under the trademark of Plaintiff "LONGIFENE" or any other logo which is similar to registered trade mark of Plaintiff till further orders. Thereafter, on 19.10.2022, the present suit was transferred to this court.
CASE OF THE DEFENDANTS
4. Summons were sent to both the Defendants. However, Defendant no.1 could not be served at both of its addresses with report of "insufficient addresses". Defendant no.2 appeared through Counsel on 04.01.2024 and learned Counsel for Defendant no.2 submitted that Defendant no. 2, who was manufacturing the products for Defendant no. 1 and the agreement had already come to an end. He further submitted that Defendant no.2 did not claim any right in the trademark and did not wish to contest the suit. He submitted at request of learned Counsel for Defendant no. 1 that he would take instructions from Defendant no. 2 to furnish address of Defendant no.1.
5. None appeared for Defendant no.2 till 17.05.2024 and in the meantime, Plaintiff filed an application for direction to Defendant no.2 to answer the interrogatories. On 17.05.2024, learned Counsel for Defendant no.2 objected to the interrogatory (b) and (c) by which Plaintiff had asked for all e-mails, WhatsApp messages and electronic NEERA BHARIHOKE CS(Comm) No.226/21 Mankind Pharma Ltd. Vs. Aria Life Science Private Limited Page 6 of 14 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.28 15:27:48 +0530 communications in respect of the impugned mark. Learned Counsel for Defendant no.2 submitted that it infringed the privacy of the Defendant no.2. Learned Counsel for Plaintiff responded that the Plaintiff was only asking for the communication related to the impugned mark.
6. After hearing submissions, the interrogatories were allowed except for the interrogatory (b), (c), (d) and (k). Defendant no. 2 was directed to reply to the other interrogatories on a affidavit. Learned Counsel for Defendant no. 2 submitted that it would be difficult to mention and file copies of all invoices. Therefore, it was directed that Defendant no. 2 can file the invoices for the initial period and the end period. If required, direction would be given for production of the invoices for other period also. Defendant no. 2 had not filed Written Statement. Defendant was also required to disclose and file all documents related to the matter.
7. The matter was adjourned to 19.07.2024. However, none appeared for Plaintiff. The Defendant had not answered the interrogatories and matter was adjourned to 27.08.2024.
8. However, Defendant no.2 stopped appearing and was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 02.09.2024. Vide the same order, direction was given to serve Defendant no.1 by substituted means for the next date of hearing. However, despite being served through publication in "Times of India", Jaipur dated 04.10.2024 and "Dainik Navjyoti" dt. 05.10.2024 and "Jai Hind Daily" Ahmedabad dated 04.10.2024, Defendant no.1 NEERA BHARIHOKE CS(Comm) No.226/21 Mankind Pharma Ltd. Vs. Aria Life Science Private Limited Page 7 of 14 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.28 15:27:55 +0530 appeared but did not file its Written Statement.
9. Right of Defendant no.1 to file Written Statement was closed vide order dated 25.11.2024 and the matter was adjourned to 09.01.2025 for Plaintiff's Evidence.
10. On 09.01.2025, the Defendant no.1 was also proceeded ex parte and the matter was listed for ex parte Plaintiff's Evidence.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
11. On 17.03.2025, Plaintiff examined PW-1 Shri Harsh Vardhan. He presented his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. PW-1/A. He reiterated the contents of the plaint and relied upon the following documents:-
i. Certified true copy of Board Resolution is Ex. PW-1/1.
ii. Copy of IQVIA, November, 2020 evidencing the deponent company as the 5th largest pharmaceutical company in India is Ex. PW-1/2.
iii. Copy of extracts of registration as reflecting in online records of the Register of Trade Marks under number 191096 is Ex. PW-1/3.
iv. Copy of deed of assignment between UCB Pharma, S.A. and plaintiff is Ex. PW-1/4.
v. Copy of the application made before the Registrar to record deponent company as subsequent proprietor of the mark is Ex. PW-1/5.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS(Comm) No.226/21 Mankind Pharma Ltd. Vs. Aria Life Science Private Limited Page 8 of 14 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.28 15:28:03 +0530 vi. Copy of the registration certificate is Ex. PW-1/6.
vii. Renewal attended by the deponent company for the said trademark is Ex. PW-1/7.
viii. Original Certificate duly issued by the auditor for the deponent company evidencing year wise sales figures of the said products under the said mark LONGIFENE is Ex. PW-1/8.
ix. Copies of the invoices related to the said products sold across the length and breadth of the country under the said mark LONGIFENE during the relevant period is Ex. PW-1/9 (collectively.) x. Office copy of the cease-and-desist notice alongwith their counter tracking receipts are Ex. PW-1/10 (collectively).
xi. Copy of the Trademark Application filed by the Defendant under number 4925164, which is available in the online records of the Register of the Trade Marks is Ex. PW-1/11.
xii. Original specimen of the deponent company's goods being sold under the said Mark LONGIFENE and the Defendant's goods being sold under a deceptively similar mark LONGIGAIN-A which are sold both within and outside jurisdiction of this court are Ex. PW-1/12 and Ex. PW-1/13 respectively.
xiii. Certificate by way of affidavit u/o XI Rule 6 (3) CPC as applicable to Commercial Dispute and Amended by the Commercial Courts, Commercial Divisions and Commercial Appellate Division of High Court ordinance, 2015 read with Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex. PW-1/14.
xiv. Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex. PW-
1/15.
NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.28 15:28:09 +0530 CS(Comm) No.226/21 Mankind Pharma Ltd. Vs. Aria Life Science Private Limited Page 9 of 14
12. On 17.03.2025, PW-1 was discharged and on the same day, Plaintiff's Evidence was closed on the statement of Shri Harsh Vardhan, Authorized Representative of the Plaintiff.
DEFENDANTS' EVIDENCE
13. Since the Defendants were proceeded ex parte, therefore, the matter was not listed for Defendants' Evidence and the matter was adjourned for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
14. On 27.03.2025, learned Counsel for Plaintiff advanced submissions about the factual matrix of the case alongwith reference to the relevant documents which were tendered by PW-1. Written submissions were supplied by learned Counsel for the Plaintiff on 27.03.2025.
FINDINGS
15. I have heard the submissions of learned Counsel for Plaintiff and have carefully gone through the record.
16. Both Defendants did not file their Written Statement despite being served. Therefore, the case of the Plaintiff remains uncontroverted.
NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.28 CS(Comm) No.226/21 Mankind Pharma Ltd. Vs. Aria Life Science Private Limited Page 10 of 14 15:28:16 +0530
17. The suit of the Plaintiff is based upon the documents placed on record as Ex. PW-1/1 to Ex.PW-1/15 supported by certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. The testimony of PW-1 has been duly corroborated by the documents placed on record. There is no occasion to doubt the veracity of the said witness and for that matter, the authenticity of testimony led by him. The testimony of PW-1 has gone unrebutted and unchallenged because both Defendants are ex parte. This court finds no reason to disbelieve the on-oath testimony of the Plaintiff coupled with the relevant documents. Hence, the Plaintiff has successfully proved its case by preponderance of probability.
18. In view of these observations, the interim order dated 30.04.2021 is made absolute. Further, perpetual injunction is granted in favour of the Plaintiff and against the both Defendants and it is directed that Defendants, either by themselves or through their dealers, distributors, stockiest, agents, associates, employees, servants, and/or assigns are restrained from infringing the trade mark of Plaintiff "LONGIFENE" with respect to medicinal and pharmaceutical operation in any manner whatsoever.
19. Perpetual injunction is granted in favour of the Plaintiff and against both defendants restraining the defendants, either by themselves or through their dealers, distributors, stockiest, agents, associates, employees, servants, and/or assigns from passing off the trade mark of NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE CS(Comm) No.226/21 Mankind Pharma Ltd. Vs. Aria Life Science Private Limited Page 11 of 14 Date: 2025.03.28 15:28:22 +0530 Plaintiff "LONGIFENE" with respect to medicinal and pharmaceutical operation in any manner whatsoever.
20. Perpetual injunction is granted in favour of the Plaintiff and against both defendants restraining the defendants, either by themselves or through their dealers, distributors, stockiest, agents, associates, employees, servants, and/or assigns from trading and/or selling and/or dealing and/or advertising including advertising and selling on internet under the impugned trademark "LONGIGAIN-A/LONGIGAIN"
21. Since the Defendants have not appeared, order directing Rendition of Accounts of profit earned by the Defendants illegally by selling the goods under the impugned trademark"LONGIGAIN-A/LONGIGAIN"
cannot be ascertained and therefore, no order can be passed in this regard since even Plaintiff has failed to produce anything on record to ascertain the same. Therefore, the prayer in regard to Rendition of Accounts of profit earned by the Defendants is declined.
22. The Plaintiff has also claimed damages and learned Counsel for Plaintiff invited attention to the annual sales figure of the products under the mark "LONGIFENE" of the Plaintiff filed as Ex.PW-1/8 which demonstrates the sales figure of Plaintiff to be Rs.1548.74 Lacs in the financial year 2020-2021 and learned Counsel for Plaintiff submitted that it has increased multifold since then. He also stated that the documents filed by the Plaintiff speak volumes about the goodwill and reputation of NEERA BHARIHOKE CS(Comm) No.226/21 Mankind Pharma Ltd. Vs. Aria Life Science Private Limited Page 12 of 14 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.28 15:28:28 +0530 the Plaintiff as well as the quantum of sale of the Plaintiff under the mark "LONGIFENE" and relied on that Ex.PW-1/8 read with Ex.PW-1/9 (collectively) i.e. data of sale of the products of the Plaintiff across the country/stock ledger of products sold under the trademark "LONGIFENE" for the year 2009-2010 and the tax invoices. The sales figures in these exhibits read with the other documents established that Defendants have cashed upon the goodwill of the Plaintiff. Therefore, penal damages are decreed to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the Plaintiff to be paid by the Defendants jointly and severally. Defendant No.2 had appeared through Counsel on 04.01.2024 and submitted that Defendant No.2 was manufacturing the products for Defendant No.1 and the Agreement has already come to an end. It was also submitted that Defendant No.2 does not claim any right in the Trademark and does not wish to contest the suit. However, Defendant No.2 did not answer to the interrogatories filed by Plaintiff despite several directions and thereafter stopped appearing. The conduct of Defendant No.2 prior to filing of the suit is not wiped by the statement made to this court on 04.01.2024 and subsequent conduct reveals that both the Defendants were acting in connivance since Defendant No.2 did not even disclose the contact details of Defendant No.1. Therefore, the liability has been affixed on both the Defendants jointly and severally.
23. Defendants are also directed to pay to Plaintiff the cost of the suit which shall include pleader's fee and the other costs on the scale provided under section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure as substituted by Commercial Courts Act. If the payment is not made within thirty NEERA CS(Comm) No.226/21 Mankind Pharma Ltd. Vs. Aria Life Science Private Limited Page 13 of 14 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.28 15:28:36 +0530 days, the cost shall also carry simple interest @ 6% per annum. The liability of the Defendants shall be joint and several.
24. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open Digitally signed
by NEERA
NEERA BHARIHOKE
BHARIHOKE Date:
2025.03.28
Court on 28.03.2025 15:28:43 +0530
(Dr. Neera Bharihoke)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-06
South East, Saket, New Delhi
28.03.2025
Certified that this judgment contains 14 pages and each page bears my signatures.
NEERA (Dr. Neera Bharihoke) BHARIHOKE District Judge (Commercial Court)-06 South East, Saket, New Delhi Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE 28.03.2025 Date: 2025.03.28 15:28:49 +0530 CS(Comm) No.226/21 Mankind Pharma Ltd. Vs. Aria Life Science Private Limited Page 14 of 14