Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

I.A. 5841/2022 (for stay)

2. The present suit under sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter 'Act') for permanent injunction restraining passing off, rendition of accounts, damages, etc. has been filed by the Plaintiff-M/s Saga Lifesciences Limited. The Plaintiff seeks to protect the mark "ULTRAMOL" used by it in respect of pharmaceutical preparations. The products of the Plaintiff sold under the brand "ULTRAMOL" are paracetamol preparations in different dosage forms. The grievance of the Plaintiff in the present case is that Defendant No.1 is also selling identical products under the mark "ULTRAMOL" in different dosage forms of the same medicine, i.e., paracetamol.

5. Defendant No.1- Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. is a company which is also selling identical products, i.e., paracetamol preparations under the mark "ULTRAMOL". Defendant No.1 has also filed an application in the year 2005 bearing No. 1380082 in class-05 for the registration of the mark "ULTRAMOL" on 'proposed to be used' basis. Currently, the application of Defendant No.1 is 'opposed' by various third parties.

6. The case of the Plaintiff is that Defendant No.1 sought registration from the Drug Authority for products under the mark "ARISTO ULTRAMOL". However, it is using "ULTRAMOL" on a standalone basis on its products, both on the blister packaging as also on the outer carton. The Plaintiff's case is that it is the prior user of the mark "ULTRAMOL". It has placed on record invoices, drug licence and sales figures since the year 1991 showing use of the mark "ULTRAMOL" though the trademark application filed by it earlier may have been abandoned.

10. On adoption of the mark "ULTRAMOL" by Defendant No.1 and explanation thereto, the ld. Counsel submits that the Defendant company had launched a combination of Tramadol Hydrochloride & Paracetamol. The said combination is stated to be of much higher effect and therefore the word "ULTRA", which suggests 'extreme' was affixed with the word "MOL" derived from Paracetamol. In view of the due diligence conducted and adoption being honest, it is Mr. Chandra's submission that the Plaintiff does not make out a case for grant of an injunction, especially because there has been no sale of the Plaintiff within India since the last 8 years. Since there is no sale in India, there is no likelihood of confusion. He relies upon the Oxford Dictionary to show that that the meaning of the word "ULTRA" is 'extreme' and 'strong', which was the purpose for which it was adopted in respect of Defendant No.1's product. Finally, he submits that the Plaintiff's drug license was not in the knowledge of Defendant No.1. The Plaintiff's license was granted by the Drug Authority in Gujarat whereas Defendant No.1's drug license was granted by the Drug Authority in Daman & Diu, and Pondicherry. Ld. Counsel for Defendant No.1 has finally submitted that the balance of convenience is in the favour of Defendant No.1 which is already using the mark "ULTRAMOL" and not in favour of the Plaintiff which is not selling products in India. Irreparable injury would be caused to Defendant No.1 if an injunction is granted by this Court.

14. Without going into the question of any offers or counter offers made by the parties, since the case is at the interim stage and the parties have been heard, the Court has to adjudicate the issue on prima facie merits. The following significant facts stand out in this case:

• The mark is identical, i.e., "ULTRAMOL". • The medical preparations for which the mark is being used are also identical, i.e., paracetamol, and various dosages and forms of paracetamol.