Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Gujarat High Court

Cipla Limited vs M/S Palak Pharma on 24 November, 2022

     C/AO/85/2018                                      ORDER DATED: 24/11/2022




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 85 of 2018
                                With
             CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2018
               In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 85 of 2018
==========================================================
                             CIPLA LIMITED
                                 Versus
                      M/S PALAK PHARMA & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. RAHUL R DHOLAKIA(6765) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. JAINISH P SHAH(7033) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA

                            Date : 24/11/2022

                             ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Rahul Dholakia for the appellant and learned advocate Mr.Jainish Shah for respondent No.1.

2. Learned advocate Mr.Dholakia, at the outset, tendered undertaking/declaration of the appellant dated 11 th October, 2022 filed before the learned City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, in Suit No.2685 of 2015, relevant portion of which is extracted hereinbelow.

"1. The Defendant no. 1 vide present Undertaking/Declaration, declare that in the above suit, pursuant to the injunctive order passed by this Hon'ble Court, the defendant no. 1 has stopped the use of the dispute mark I-omega and have already changed its trademark since then, in due compliance of the order so passed by the Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 23 23:54:28 IST 2022 C/AO/85/2018 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2022 court.

2. The Defendant no. 1 submits that they do not have any interest in the disputed trademark and do not wish to use the said trademark in future also since they have already changed the trademark altogether as a part of business decision.

3. In view of the above, no cause of action survives in the present suit and the suit may kindly be disposed off as infructuous.

4. Further, the above declaration is not an admission on the part of the defendant herein to the suit filed by the plaintiff and the reply / written statement is already filed by the defendant whereby the claim of the plaintiff is specifically denied by the defendant.

5. In view of the above declaration and statement of the defendant no. 1, since the defendant has already stopped using the mark and do not wish to use the impugned mark any longer, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dispose off the suit, since the cause of action does not survive in the present suit."

3. In the aforesaid undertaking, the appellant has already declared that they have stopped using the mark and do not wish to use the mark any longer.

C/AO/85/2018 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2022

4. In view of the aforesaid undertaking, learned advocate for the appellant does not press the present Appeal From Order. It stands disposed of accordingly. Notice is discharged.

ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION In view of order of even date passed in the main Appeal From Order, no order is required to be passed in the present Civil Application. It stands disposed of accordingly. Notice is discharged.

(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J) ANUP Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 23 23:54:28 IST 2022