Delhi High Court - Orders
Akums Drugs And Pharmaceuticals ... vs Kovex Life Sciences & Ors on 5 August, 2024
$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 648/2024 & I.A. Nos. 35482/2024, 35483/2024,
35484/2024, 35485/2024, 35486/2024 & 35487/2024
AKUMS DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED AND
ANR .....Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. J. Sai Deepak with Mr. Avinash
K. Sharma and Mr. R. Abhishak,
Advocates.
(M): 7289036972
versus
KOVEX LIFE SCIENCES & ORS. .....Defendants
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
ORDER
% 05.08.2024 I.A. 35483/2024 (Exemption from filing original/certified copies of documents)
1. The present is an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC"), on behalf of the plaintiffs, seeking exemption from filing original/certified copies of documents, documents with dim photocopies, and without adequate left margin.
2. Exemption is granted, subject to all just exceptions.
3. Applicant shall file legible, clear, and translated copies of the documents, on which the plaintiffs may seek to place reliance, before the CS(COMM) 648/2024 Page 1 of 19 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2024 at 00:00:38 next date of hearing.
4. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of. I.A. 35485/2024 (Exemption from instituting Pre-Litigation Mediation)
5. The present is an application under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking exemption from undergoing Pre-Institution Mediation.
6. Having regard to the facts of the present case and in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Yamini Manohar versus T.K.D. Keerthi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1382, and Division Bench of this Court in Chandra Kishore Chaurasia Versus RA Perfumery Works Private Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3529, exemption from attempting Pre-Institution Mediation, is granted.
7. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. I.A. 35486/2024 (Exemption from advance service to the defendant)
8. The present is an application under Section 151 CPC seeking exemption from advance service to the defendant.
9. The plaintiffs seek urgent interim relief. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, exemption from effecting advance service upon the defendants, is granted.
10. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and disposed of.
I.A. 35484/2024 (Application seeking leave to file additional documents)
11. This is an application under Order XI Rule 1(4) read with 151 CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, seeking leave to file additional documents.
12. The plaintiffs, if they wish to file additional documents at a later CS(COMM) 648/2024 Page 2 of 19 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2024 at 00:00:38 stage, shall do so strictly as per the provisions of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
13. The application is disposed of, with the aforesaid directions. I.A. No. 35487/2024 (Application seeking permission to file Court fees within two weeks)
14. The present is an application under Section 149 read with Section 151 CPC seeking permission to file Court Fees within two weeks.
15. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submits that the Court fees, has already been procured, and that the same shall be filed within a period of two weeks.
16. Liberty is accordingly granted.
17. Noting the above, the present application is disposed of. CS(COMM) 648/2024
18. Let the plaint be registered as suit.
19. Upon filing of the process fee, issue summons to the defendants by all permissible modes. Summons shall state that the written statement be filed by the defendants within thirty days from the date of receipt of summons. Along with the written statement, the defendants shall also file affidavit of admission/denial of the plaintiffs‟ documents, without which, the written statement shall not be taken on record.
20. Liberty is given to the plaintiffs to file replication within thirty days from the date of receipt of the written statement. Further, along with the replication, if any, filed by the plaintiffs, an affidavit of admission/denial of documents of the defendants, be filed by the plaintiffs, without which, the replication shall not be taken on record. If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of the documents, the same shall be sought and given within the CS(COMM) 648/2024 Page 3 of 19 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2024 at 00:00:39 timelines.
21. List before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) for marking of exhibits, on 25th September, 2024.
22. List before the Court, on 12th December, 2024.
I.A. No. 35482/2024 (Application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking ex-parte ad-interim injunction)
23. The present suit has been filed seeking permanent injunction against the infringement of registered trademarks, copyright, trade dress, passing off, unfair competition, declaration, rendition of accounts, damages, delivery up etc, under Section 29(1), 29(2)(b) and Section 27(2) of the Trademarks Act, 1999.
24. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submits that the plaintiff no. 1 first coined the word mark „CERVIFERT‟ and subsequently its stylised representation and filed an application dated 08th January, 2012, on a „proposed to be used‟ basis for registration under class 5 for „pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations‟ thereof, vide Trade Mark Application No. 2262938. Subsequently, the said mark was duly advertised and the plaintiff no. 1 became the registered proprietor of the said mark. Further, the plaintiff no. 1 also filed an application dated 08 th March, 2013 for the word mark „CERVIFERT‟ vide Application No. 2492386, with the user date claimed as on 22nd January, 2013, in class-5 for „pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations and substances‟. It is submitted that the said mark also stands registered in favour of plaintiff no. 1.
25. It is submitted that the plaintiff no. 1 also coined the work mark „MET-PCO‟ and filed an Application No. 4172462 dated 10th May, 2019, CS(COMM) 648/2024 Page 4 of 19 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2024 at 00:00:39 with the user date claimed as on 25th September, 2015 under class 5 for „medicinal and pharmaceutical formulation‟. It is submitted that the said mark also stands registered in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff no. 2 also uses the said mark with its stylised representation
26. The plaintiffs‟ mark and other device marks including the mark „CERVIFERT‟& „MET-PCO‟ are distinct and do not in any way indicate the kind, quality, intended purpose, geographic origin of the product, for which the mark has been registered. The details of the registration, as given in the plaint, are reproduced as under:-
27. It is submitted that the mark „CERVIFERT‟/ and „MET-PCO‟/ were adopted with bonafide intent by the plaintiff no. 1 and have been in use continously without interruption. The use of the said trade marks were also licensed to plaintiff no.2, vide Trade Mark License Agreements dated 01st January, 2015, 25th September, 2015 and 30th April, 2016. It is further submitted that all the marks are valid, CS(COMM) 648/2024 Page 5 of 19 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2024 at 00:00:39 subsisting and in force. Since their adoption by the plaintiff no. 1, the trademark „CERVIFERT‟/ and „MET-PCO‟/ have been put into extensive, continuous and uninterrupted use, and that the same have acquired secondary meaning.
28. Thus, it is submitted on account of prior adoption, long and continuous use, marketing network, enormous sales and quality control maintained by the plaintiff in relation to its medicines, the same has acquired formidable goodwill, and reputation in the market. Thus, any unauthorised use by third party of an identical or similar mark, in relation to the identical goods, would inevitably mislead the consumers and members of the trade, who would believe that such goods also originate from the plaintiff or have some connection, affiliation, nexus and have the necessary approvals from the plaintiff.
29. Attention of this Court has been drawn to the sales figures with respect to the products in question, to submit that immense goodwill has been achieved by the plaintiff, with respect to its products.
30. It is submitted that in the month of June, 2024, it came to the plaintiff‟s knowledge through its sales representative and marketing team, that the defendants were selling on third party e-commerce interactive websites, medicines under the impugned mark „CERVIFINE‟/ and „MET-OVEX‟/ , which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff‟s medicine under the trade mark CS(COMM) 648/2024 Page 6 of 19 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2024 at 00:00:39 „CERVIFERT‟/ and „MET-PCO‟/ .
31. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs has shown the actual products to this Court, to show the similarity between the products of the plaintiffs and the defendants.
32. It is submited that the plaintiffs issued a Cease & Desist notice dated 10th June, 2024, to which the defendants issued a reply dated 24th June, 2024. Thus, by reference to the reply of the defendants, it is submited that the defendants have admittedly adopted the impugned mark, only in the year 2023, which establishes the malafide intent on the part of the defendants to adopt the impugned marks, which are deceptively similar to the plaintiffs‟ marks, which is causing grave injury to the plaintiffs‟ common law rights, proprietorship rights, intellectual property rights, and potentially confusing or misleading new customers, including, causing loss of goodwill as well as revenue. A comparison of the packaging of the defendants and the plaintiffs‟ products, as given in the plaint, is reproduced as under:-
CS(COMM) 648/2024 Page 7 of 19This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2024 at 00:00:39 CS(COMM) 648/2024 Page 8 of 19 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2024 at 00:00:39 CS(COMM) 648/2024 Page 9 of 19 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2024 at 00:00:39 CS(COMM) 648/2024 Page 10 of 19 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2024 at 00:00:39
33. By referring to the comparison table of the plaintiffs‟ and the defendants‟ products, it is submitted that the defendants have brazenly copied the entire trade dress and get up of the plaintiffs‟ product, including the colour scheme, text placement, specifically with respect to the plaintiffs‟ products „LINEATOR PLUS‟, which is sold by the defendants, as „KOFERT-GOLD‟.
CS(COMM) 648/2024 Page 11 of 19This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2024 at 00:00:39
34. It is submitted that the defendants have deliberately substituted the alphabets „INE‟ with „ERT‟ in „CERVIFERT‟ to arrive at their impugned mark „CERVIFINE‟. Further, the defendants have substituted the alphabets „PCO‟ with „OVEX‟ in „MET-PCO‟ to arrive at their impugned mark „MET-OVEX‟. Further, it is submitted that the defendants have also made an attempt to imitate the trade dress adopted by the defendants in its product Kofert-Gold, which is deceptively similar to the plaintiffs‟ product Lineator Plus. Thus, it is submitted that the use of the infringing marks also results in „idea infringement‟.
35. It is further submitted that defendant no. 2 has also applied for registration of both the impugned marks, i.e., TM Application no. 6303264 dated 15th February, 2024 for the impugned mark „METOVEX‟ under Class 5 on a „proposed to be used‟ basis, followed by TM Application No.6493250 dated 22nd June, 2024 for the impugned mark „CERVIFINE‟ under Class 5 on a „proposed to be used‟ basis. Thus, it is submitted that the defendants‟ impugned marks „CERVIFINE‟ and „METOVEX‟ are visually, structurally and phonetically, deceptively similar to the plaintiffs registered trade mark „CERVIFERT‟/ and „MET-PCO‟/ , thereby making out a clear case of infringment as defined in Section 29(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
36. It is submitted that the defendants are selling, offering for sale, distributing, advertising, or retailing directly or indirectly such products, which amounts to infrigment as also passing off the goods of the plaintiffs.
37. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submits that the CS(COMM) 648/2024 Page 12 of 19 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2024 at 00:00:39 defendant no. 3 is the former employee of the plaintiffs and has chosen to carry on the same business along with other defendants by infringing the trade mark and trade dress of the products of the plaintiffs. It is further submited that defendant no. 2 is the wife of defendant no. 3.
38. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs relies upon the judgment in the case of Sanjay Arora Versus Jasmer, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2934, and relies upon the following paras, which read as under:-
"16.2 Secondly, the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Copenhagen Hospitality and Retails and Others v A.R. Impex and Other, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4701,is also relevant. In the said decision, defendant was a former employee of plaintiffs‟, who were operating a chain of pizzerias under the name „La Pino‟z Pizza‟. After a termination agreement was executed between the parties, defendant set up its own „La Milano Pizzeria‟. The Court held that adoption of such mark by defendant was dishonest and mischievous, considering the past contractual relationship between the parties and the manner in which defendants adopted the impugned mark. The relevant paragraph is extracted below:
"45. ...Further, a brand-owner is not duty-bound to initiate or file an action against every infringer whatsoever, even if it does not impact its business. Therefore, even if a Plaintiff has not taken action against other third parties who may be using marks similar to its own, this non-action cannot be a good ground to refuse injunction. That said, the facts of the case demonstrate that the adoption of the marks by the Defendant was dishonest. Undisputedly, Defendant No. 1 was the franchisee of Plaintiff No.
1. Whilst in business, they were using the Plaintiffs' trademarks as a licensee. They used these-marks for monetization of their business and now cannot turn around and challenge the validity of such marks. Significantly, on termination of the agreement, they adopted marks for their pizza names which are visually and phonetically, ex facie, similar to the Plaintiffs' marks. This adoption is therefore mischievous, considering the past contractual relationship between the parties and the manner in which the Defendants have come to adopt the impugned marks. These facts establish a prima facie case. Balance of convenience also lies in favour of the Plaintiff to be entitled to an injunction restraining the Defendants from using any marks deceptively similar to Plaintiffs' registered marks noted in the table above."
(emphasis added) CS(COMM) 648/2024 Page 13 of 19 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2024 at 00:00:40 16.3 Thirdly, the decision of a Single Judge of this Court in ACL Education Centre Pvt. Ltd. and Another v Americans' Centre for Languages and Another, 2007 SCC OnLine Del 2010, while granting an ex parte injunction in favour of plaintiffs, relied upon the case of A.C. Krishnan v. Nambisan's Dairy Pvt. Ltd., (1997) 17 PTC 806, to elaborate on dishonest adoption of plaintiff‟s mark by defendant who was a former employee of plaintiff‟s firm. Further, reliance was also placed on decision of Munday v. Carey, 1905 RPC 273, to state that in the case of dishonest adoption, greater attention is to be paid to the items of similarity and less to the items of dissimilarity. The relevant paragraphs are extracted as under:
"9. In A.C. Krishnan v. Nambisan's Dairy Pvt. Ltd., 1997 PTC 17 (DB), the plaintiff had adopted the trade mark „Nambisans‟. First defendant was working as Manager in one of the branches of the plaintiff's firm. Second defendants' father was a dismissed employee of the plaintiff. They had started using the trade mark „Nambeesans‟. The Court held that it was dishonest adoption and would cause confusion in the mind of the probable customers or purchasers and thus, confirmed the injunction granted by the High Court against the defendants from using the said name. It was also held that generic name had relevance only for the purpose of registration and in an action of passing off it was immaterial."
11. In the case of Munday v. Carey, 1905 RPC 273 the Court held:
"....I believe that it is a rank case of dishonestly, and where you see dishonesty, then even though the similarity were less than it is here, you ought, I think, to pay great attention to the items of similarity, and less to the items of dissimilarity".
(emphasis added) 16.4 Lastly, in the decision of Neuberg Hitech Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Dr. Ganesan'sHitech Diagnostic Centre Pvt. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 8779, it was held that an injunction should follow if it appears, either prima facie or otherwise, that the adoption of the mark was dishonest. In the said decision, defendants were the the ex-employees of plaintiff and appropriated the mark of plaintiff by applying it to the business established by them. The relevant paragraph is extracted as under:
"33. It should also be noticed that the plaintiff's assertion that two employees of the plaintiff resigned from its employment and established the second defendant under the trade name "Hitech Advanced Labs" is not denied by the defendants. Thus, it appears that two ex-employees of the plaintiff, without permission or authorisation, appropriated the mark of their ex-employer and applied it to the business established by them. Since these facts are not controverted, they qualify as prima facie evidence of dishonest CS(COMM) 648/2024 Page 14 of 19 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2024 at 00:00:40 adoption by the first defendant. The second defendant was admittedly acquired by the first defendant and thereafter, a limited company was incorporated under the corporate name "Neuberg Hitech Laboratories Private Limited", which contains the mark "Hitech". The plaintiff is an established diagnostic services company especially in Tamil Nadu and the first defendant cannot and does not assert ignorance of the prior use of the mark "Hitech" by the plaintiff....
.....Considering the above and the admitted fact that the first defendant's adoption of the mark owes its origin to the acquisition of the second defendant, the first defendant's adoption is also prima facie not honest. Both Midas Hygiene Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia, (2004) 3 SCC 90 and T.V. Venugopal v. Ushodaya Enterprises Limited, (2011) 4 SCC 85 instruct that an injunction should follow if it appears, either prima facie or otherwise, that the adoption of the mark was dishonest. Therefore, a prima facie case is made out for the grant of interim relief."
(emphasis added) xxx xxx xxx"
39. Learned counsel further relies upon the judgment in the case of Cadila Health Care Ltd. Versus Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73 and relies upon para 32 of the said judgment, which reads as under:-
"xxx xxx xxx
40. Public interest would support lesser degree of proof showing confusing similarity in the case of trade mark in respect of medicinal product as against other non-medicinal products. Drugs are poisons, not sweets. Confusion between medicinal products may, therefore, be life threatening, not merely inconvenient. Noting the frailty of human nature and the pressures placed by society on doctors, there should be as many clear indicators as possible to distinguish two medicinal products from each other. It is not uncommon that in hospitals, drugs can be requested verbally and/or under critical/pressure situations. Many patients may be elderly, infirm or illiterate. They may not be in a position to differentiate between the medicine prescribed and bought which is ultimately handed over to them. This view finds support from McCarthy on Trade Marks, 3rd Edition, para 23.12 of which reads as under:
"The tests of confusing similarity are modified when the goods involved are medicinal products. Confusion of source or product between medicinal products may produce physically harmful results to purchasers and greater protection is required than in the ordinary case. If the goods involved are medicinal products each CS(COMM) 648/2024 Page 15 of 19 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2024 at 00:00:40 with different effects and designed for even subtly different uses, confusion among the products caused by similar marks could have disastrous effects. For these reasons, it is proper to require a lesser quantum of proof of confusing similarity for drugs and medicinal preparations. The same standard has been applied to medical products such as surgical sutures and clavicle splints."
xxx xxx xxx"
41. Learned counsel also relies upon the order dated 21 st April, 2022 passed in CS (COMM) 256/2022, titled as JB Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd Versus Supermax drugs and pharmauticals Pvt Ltd and Ors, and relies upon paras 18 to 20, which read as under:-
"xxx xxx xxx
18. Heard. This Court has perused the documents on record as also the Intangible and Information Asset Transfer Agreement dated 26th January, 2022 and Deed of Assignment dated 1st February, 2022. The appointment letter dated 26th January, 2022 issued in favour of Defendant No.3-Mr. Gampala Srinivas is also on record. It is clear that there was a history of relationship between the parties and the adoption of the mark „PROBUN‟ was done with a dishonest and mala fide intention.
19. As observed by the Supreme Court in Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceutical Ltd. 2001 (5) SCC 73, the test of deceptive similarity in case of pharmaceutical products is of a higher standard, owing to the deleterious effect that look-alike or feel-alike products can have on the patients.
20. In the opinion of this Court, the Plaintiff has made a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad-interim injunction. The balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiff and irreparable loss would be caused to the Plaintiff as also the consumers of the medicines, if the Defendants are allowed to continue the use of the mark „PROBUN‟, or any other mark which is identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff‟s mark „LOBUN‟.
xxx xxx xxx"
42. Thus, it is submitted that the continuous and unauthorised adoption CS(COMM) 648/2024 Page 16 of 19 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2024 at 00:00:40 and use of the term „CERVIFINE‟/ and „MET-OVEX‟/ and KOFERT-GOLD, and trade dress by the defendants, which is nearly identical/deceptively similar to the plaintiffs‟ reputed registered trademarks CERVIFERT‟/ and „MET-PCO‟/ and Linetor Plus, also constitutes an act of passing off.
43. It is submitted that an unwary consumer having average intelligence and imperfect recollection, is liable to confuse the defendants‟ products with that of the plaintiffs‟ or vice versa. The manner of use of the impugned mark in respect of identical goods unequivocally suggests the intention of the defendants to pass off its own goods, as those of the plaintiffs.
44. It is submitted that the proliferation of any similar/identical marks by the defendants would lead to complete tarnishment of the plaintiffs‟ goodwill, which would be irreparable and un-compensable in the form of damages. The intention of the defendants is to ride piggyback on the success of the plaintiff‟s products.
45. Thus, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submits that in view of the fact that the products in question are pharmaceuticals, and seeing the conduct of the former employee and on account of the fact that burden on the plaintiffs is much lower in case of pharmaceutical products, it is a fit case where interim injunction ought to be granted in favour of the plaintiffs.
CS(COMM) 648/2024 Page 17 of 19This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2024 at 00:00:40
46. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have demonstrated a prima facie case for grant of injunction and if no ad-interim ex-parte injunction is granted, the plaintiffs will suffer an irreparable loss. Further, the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
47. Thus, accordingly, till the next date of hearing, defendants, its directors, its principal officers, family members, servants, agents, vendors, dealers, manufacturers, distributors, retailers and anyone acting for and on its behalf are restrained from producing, selling, offering for sale or advertising, promoting its goods or services, exporting or enabling advertising campaigns either directly or indirectly in physical/electronic form, internet, websites or in any manner any product/packaging material bearing the mark/label „CERVIFINE‟ and „MET-
OVEX‟ , trade dress/tag line adopted in KOFERT GOLD, or its related marks including or any mark which is identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs‟ marks/labels so as to result in infringement/passing off, of the trademark and trade dress of the plaintiffs‟ products.
48. However, it is directed that the defendants will be at liberty to exhaust their existing stock within a period of two months from today. The defendants are directed to file details of their existing stock, including, batch numbers and the date of manufacturing.
49. Issue notice to the defendants by all permissible modes, upon filing of process fees, returnable on the next date of hearing.
CS(COMM) 648/2024 Page 18 of 19This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2024 at 00:00:40
50. Reply, if any, be filed within a period of four weeks from the date of service.
51. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of two weeks, thereafter.
52. Compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC, be done, within a period of one week, from today.
53. List before the Court on 12th December, 2024.
MINI PUSHKARNA, J AUGUST 5, 2024 c CS(COMM) 648/2024 Page 19 of 19 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2024 at 00:00:40