Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Alkem Laboratories Ltd vs Sgs Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd on 12 May, 2021

Author: Jayant Nath

Bench: Jayant Nath

                          $~OS-9
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +    CS (COMM) 213/2021 & I.As. 6356-57/2021
                               ALKEM LABORATORIES LTD.                    ... Plaintiff
                                              Through     Mr.Sagar Chandra and Ms.Shubhie
                                                          Wahi, Advs.
                                              versus
                               SGS PHARMACEUTICAL PVT. LTD.               ... Defendant
                                              Through     Mr.Manoj Kumar Garg, Adv.

                                CORAM:
                                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
                                            ORDER

% 12.05.2021 This hearing is conducted through video conferencing.

I.A. 6357/2021(exemption) Allowed subject to just exceptions.

I.A. 6356/2021

1. This is an application seeking to correct typographical mistake in the order dated 03.05.2021.

2. The paras 8 and 9 of the order dated 03.05.2021 read as follows:

8. A perusal of the impugned mark of the defendant 'SAMU' shows that it is deceptively similar to the registered trademark of the plaintiff 'SUMO'. That apart, further the composition of the products is identical namely the plaintiff SUMO is Nimesulide & paracetamol tablets and Defendant SUMA is also of the same composition.
9. Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case. Till the next date, defendant is restrained from using the mark 'SUMA' or any other mark that is identical or deceptively similar to the trademark of the plaintiff 'SUMO' till further orders."
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RADHA BISHT Signing Date:15.05.2021 12:18:48

3. It is pointed out that the impugned mark which is being used by the defendant is described as "SUMA" in the said part of the order but is "SAMU" as described in the balance part of the order.

4. The paras 8 and 9 are accordingly stands corrected.

5. The defendant is restrained from using the mark "SAMU".

6. Application is accordingly disposed of.

JAYANT NATH, J.

MAY 12, 2021/st Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RADHA BISHT Signing Date:15.05.2021 12:18:48