Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the defendant submitted that the defendant has coined their trademark honestly from their trade name and the ingredient; SY from Psycho remedies and ZOPIN from CLOZAPINE. Such trade usage in the pharma industry is well known and has been recognized by the Courts also. In fact, the defendant adopted the mark SYZOPINE in the year 2000 and started to use the same since 2002 after getting the drug approval. Since 2002, the trademark SYZOPIN has been used openly, continuously and without any interruption whatsoever. In support of his contention that the defendant has been using the mark SYZOPIN from the year 2002, the learned counsel for the defendant has also produced the sale invoices of the defendant's product under the mark SYZOPIN right from the year 2002. Further, the learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the plaintiff has known about the defendant's activities and atleast ought to have known about the defendant. In this regard, the learned counsel for the defendant has also invited the attention of this Court to several medical journals from the year 2008 and demonstrated that the drugs of the plaintiff as well as the defendant are consistently featured together in the medical journals. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the defendant, this is a case of acquiescence and laches rather than the delay. Since the conduct of the plaintiff is not a mere delay, but one with laches and acquiescence on the part of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not entitled for injunction. Further, the learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the products are used to treat 'Schizophrenia' which is a rather serious ailment. Therefore, the products are not to be treated like any other pharmaceutical product like paracetamol. In the instant case, the products cannot be purchased without a prescription as it is a Schedule H drug and as such, there will not be any confusion in identifying the two marks. The learned counsel for the defendant has also relied upon the judgment reported in 2013(3) CTC 841 (Orchid Vs. Wockhardt), wherein it has been observed that Section 29 of the Act specifies that an infringement would occur only when an unregistered Proprietor uses a registered Trade Mark, which is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public or which is likely to have an association with the registered Trade Mark; therefore, if one sees the object and reasons under Section 29 of the Act, it is clear that it is meant to be used against the person, who is not entitled to use the said Trade Mark under 'law'; it is required to constitute an infringement. Thus, by relying upon the above said judgment, the learned counsel for the defendant submitted that in the instant case, absolutely there is no likelihood of causing confusion because the tablets produced by the plaintiff as well as the defendant could be sold only by prescription of the doctors. In this regard, the learned counsel for the defendant has also relied upon the unreported judgment of this Court delivered in Application Nos.2102 & 2103 of 2012 in C.S.No.87 of 2012, Kivi Labs Ltd Vs. Sun Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd, dated 01.10.2012.