Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited vs Thulasi Pharmacies India Private ... on 9 February, 2022

Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

                                                                      C.S.(Comm. Div.) No.100 of 2021

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  Dated: 09.02.2022

                                                       Coram:

                       THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

                                          C.S.(Comm. Div.) No.100 of 2021 &
                                               A.No.346 to 349 of 2022 &
                                              O.A.Nos.750 to 753 of 2021

                     Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited
                     CD Plot No.3, Door No.8,
                     Old Tower Block Street,
                     Nandhanam Extension,
                     Chennai-600 035.                                         .. Plaintiff

                                                         Vs.

                     1.Thulasi Pharmacies India Private Limited,
                       No.280, 2nd Street, Gandhipuram,
                       Coimbatore-641 012
                       and also at
                       79, West Venkataswamy Road, R.S.Puram,
                       Coimbatore-641 002.
                       and also at
                       No.14, Amman Kovil Street,
                       Vadapalani, Chennai-600 026.

                     2.Pure & Cure Healthcare Private Limited,
                       Plot No.26-A, 27-30, Sector-8A,
                       I.I.E., SIDCUL, Haridwar-249 403,
                       Uttarkhand.                                             .. Defendants



                     Page No.1/7


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                             C.S.(Comm. Div.) No.100 of 2021

                                  This Civil Suit has been filed under IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules and
                     Order VII Rule 1 of CPC read with Sections 27, 28, 29, 134 and 135 of the
                     Trade Marks Act, 1999 praying to grant a judgment and decree on the
                     following terms: (a) A permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their
                     men, servants, agents, distributors, stockists, retailers, subsidiaries, legal
                     representatives, job-workers, manufacturers, packers, export/import agents or
                     any other person claiming under them from in any manner infringing the
                     Plaintiff's registered trademark GLUCORED through the use of GLURED
                     and/or any other mark or marks that are in any way identical with and/or
                     deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's said registered trademark/s, either by
                     manufacturing or selling or distributing or exporting or importing or offering for
                     sale or stocking or importing or exporting or advertising, either online or offline,
                     or in any other manner whatsoever; (b) A permanent injunction restraining the
                     Defendants, their men, servants, agents, distributors, stockists, retailers,
                     subsidiaries, legal representatives, job-workers, manufacturers, packers,
                     export/import agents or any other person claiming under them from in any
                     manner manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, stocking, distributing,
                     importing, exporting, advertising, either online or offline, or in any manner
                     directly or indirectly dealing in any product under the trademark GLURED,
                     either by itself or as a prefix or suffix, or any other trademark that is identical
                     with and/or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's prior adopted trademark
                     GLUCORED, so as to pass off the Defendants' products as and for the products
                     of the Plaintiff; (c) a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their
                     men, servants, agents, distributors, stockists, retailers, subsidiaries, legal

                     Page No.2/7


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                         C.S.(Comm. Div.) No.100 of 2021

                     representatives, job-workers, manufacturers, packers, export/import agents or
                     any other person claiming under them from in any manner infringing the
                     Plaintiff's registered trademark AZTOR through the use of VIZITOR and/or any
                     other mark or marks that are in any way identical with and/or deceptively
                     similar to the Plaintiff's said registered trademark, either by manufacturing or
                     selling or distributing or exporting or importing or offering for sale or stocking
                     or importing or exporting or advertising either online or offline, or in any other
                     manner whatsoever; (d) A permanent injunction restraining the Defendants,
                     their men, servants, agents, distributors, stockists, retailers, subsidiaries, legal
                     representatives, job-workers, manufacturers, packers, export/import agents or
                     any other person claiming under them from in any manner manufacturing,
                     selling, offering for sale, stocking, distributing, importing, exporting,
                     advertising, either online or offline, or in any manner directly or indirectly
                     dealing in any product under the trademark VIZITOR, either by itself or as a
                     prefix or suffix, or any other trademark that is identical with and/or deceptively
                     similar to the Plaintiff's prior adopted trademark AZTOR, so as to pass off the
                     Defendants' products as and for the products of the Plaintiff; (e) Directing the
                     Defendants' to render a true and faithful accounts of the profits earned by them
                     through the sale or advertisement of products under the impugned mark
                     GLURED, either by itself or as a prefix or suffix, and direct payment of such
                     profits to the Plaintiff for the acts of infringement and passing off committed by
                     the Defendants; (f) Directing the Defendants to render a true and faithful
                     accounts of the profits earned by them through the sale or advertisement of
                     products under the impugned mark VIZITOR, either by itself or as a prefix or

                     Page No.3/7


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                              C.S.(Comm. Div.) No.100 of 2021

                     suffix, and direct payment of such profits to the Plaintiff for the acts of
                     infringement and passing off committed by the Defendants; (g) Directing the
                     Defendants to surrender to the Plaintiff the entire stock of labels, containers,
                     boxes, canisters, packaging materials, printed materials, promotional materials,
                     stationery, including dyes, blocks screen prints and other materials bearing the
                     impugned mark GLURED, either by itself or as a prefix or suffix, or any other
                     mark(s) that are in any manner similar to the Plaintiff's trademark
                     GLUCORED, for destruction; (h) Directing the Defendants to surrender to the
                     Plaintiff's the entire stock of labels, containers, boxes, canisters, packaging
                     materials, printed materials, promotional materials, stationery, including dyes,
                     blocks, screen prints and other materials bearing the impugned mark VIZITOR,
                     either by itself or as a prefix or suffix or any other mark(s) that are in any
                     manner similar to the Plaintiff's trademark AZTOR, for destruction and (i)
                     Directing the Defendants to pay the Plaintiff the costs of the suit.
                                              For Plaintiff     :   Mr.S.Diwakar for
                                                                    Mr.Rajesh Ramanathan

                                              For Defendants    :   Mr.R.Sathish Kumar for D1
                                                                    M/s.Lekha Sankar for D2

                                                              JUDGMENT

This suit is filed seeking permanent injunctions against the defendants to restrain infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademarks 'GLUCORED' and 'AZTOR' and to restrain passing off. Consequential remedies for rendition of Page No.4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm. Div.) No.100 of 2021 accounts and destruction of infringing materials are also prayed for.

2. The plaintiff and the first defendant entered into negotiations while the suit was pending and executed a memorandum of compromise dated 07.02.2022. Such memorandum of compromise has been executed by authorized representatives of the plaintiff and the first defendant and their respective counsel. By such memorandum of compromise, the first defendant has agreed not to use the infringing trademarks or any trademarks deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff. Consequently, the first defendant has agreed to a decree of permanent injunction in terms of prayers in paragraph No.34 (a) to 34 (d) of the plaint. However, the plaintiff has agreed to permit the first defendant to sell the specific unused stocks which are set out in clause 2(c) of the memorandum of compromise provided the said sale is effected within a period of three months from the date of execution of the memorandum of compromise. As part of the compromise, the plaintiff has agreed to give up the reliefs claimed in paragraph No.34(e) to (i) of the plaint.

3. As regards the second defendant, it is stated that the second defendant Page No.5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm. Div.) No.100 of 2021 undertakes the manufacturing of products for several companies, including the first defendant, as per instructions. Consequently, the second defendant agrees to be bound by the decree by this Court if limited to the infringing products and materials. It is also pointed out that unused packaging material is stored at the premises of the second defendant. The first and second defendants undertake that such packaging materials would be destroyed. The said statement is recorded. Accordingly, there is no impediment for the disposal of the suit in terms of the memorandum of compromise.

4. Therefore, C.S.(Comm. Div.) No.100 of 2021 is decreed in terms of the memorandum of compromise dated 07.02.2022. The said memorandum of compromise shall form an integral part of the decree and shall also be binding on the second defendant. Consequently, connected applications are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

09.02.2022 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No kal SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J Page No.6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm. Div.) No.100 of 2021 kal C.S.(Comm. Div.) No.100 of 2021 & A.No.346 to 349 of 2022 & O.A.Nos.750 to 753 of 2021 09.02.2022 Page No.7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis