Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: gem plus in Alkem Laboratories Ltd vs Eris Health Care Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 8 July, 2022Matching Fragments
Product Batch No. Sale Qty. in PTS
Description Strips (15 (Rs/strip)
tablets per
strip)
DE-CAL GEM DDC21004 28,400 17.66
DE-CAL GEM DDC21005 28,800 17.65
DE-CAL GEM DDC21134 28,688 17.80
DE-CAL GEM DDC21135 28,790 17.77
DE-CAL GEM DDC21183 28,790 19.42
DE-CAL GEM DDC21184 28,770 19.42
DE-CAL GEM DDC21185 28,785 19.42
DE-CAL GEM DDC21257 28,790 19.46
DE-CAL GEM DDC21350 28,790 19.42
DE-CAL GEM DDC21351 25,190 19.66
DE-CAL GEM DDC21352 28,690 20.10
DE-CAL GEM DDC21090 28,490 24.00
PLUS
DE-CAL GEM DDC21136 28,500 24.00
PLUS
DE-CAL GEM DDC21139 28,780 26.40
PLUS
DE-CAL GEM DDC21 182 25,433 26.40
PLUS
DE-CAL GEM DDC21258 28,790 26.48
PLUS
DE-CAL GEM DDC21373 28,790 26.47
PLUS
DE-CAL GEM DDC21374 28,790 27.87
PLUS
DE-CAL GEM DDC21651 16,910 28.49
PLUS
4. I say that no batches under the mark DE-CAL GEM and DE-CAL GEM PLUS other than those depicted in the above table have been billed after 18.05.2022.
5. I say that the Defendant No.1 does not have any stock of the products under the mark DE-CAL GEM and DE-CAL GEM PLUS, in its inventory."
6. Insofar as the proposed packaging, artwork, colour combination are concerned, ld. Counsel Mr. Bawa has handed across the proposed packaging of both the products- 'DECAL PLUS' which is the new mark proposed to be adopted instead of 'DE-CAL GEM' and 'DECAL PLUS K2-7' which is the new mark proposed to be adopted instead of 'DE-CAL GEM PLUS'. The proposed packaging is set out below:
Earlier: DE-CAL GEM Now: DECAL PLUS Earlier: DE-CAL GEM PLUS Now: DECAL PLUS K2-7 Proposed packaging for DECAL 60K
7. The said proposed packagings are acceptable to ld. Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff, who however submits that insofar as the proposed blister pack is concerned the same is not reproduced in the documents handed over. Ld. Senior Counsel submits that the layout of the blister pack should not be similar to the Plaintiff's blister pack. Ld. counsel for the Defendants submits that blister pack's look and colour combination etc. would be similar to the outer packaging and that he would hand over the proposed representation of the front and rear of both the blister packs by 12th July, 2022 to ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff. However, ld. counsel for the Defendants, upon instructions, submits that insofar the warning on the blister pack is concerned, the same shall continue to be red as the same should be reflected prominently to the consumers in terms of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.