Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. List before Court on 22nd April, 2022.

I.A.5841/2022 (u/O XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC)

14. This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff- Saga Lifesciences Limited seeking protection of its trademark 'ULTRAMOL'. The Plaintiff is a company established in 1981 and is stated to have adopted the trademark 'ULTRAMOL' in respect of paracetamol preparations, in several variants, in November, 1991. The first drug approval to the Plaintiff from the Food and Drugs Control Administration (hereinafter "Drug Authority") for the manufacturing and marketing products under the mark "ULTRAMOL" is of 28th November, 1991. The commercial launch of products, being pharmaceutical preparations, under the mark 'ULTRAMOL' took place in 1992. The Plaintiff has after the commercial launch in 1992, made the product 'ULTRAMOL' available across the country as also on e-commerce platforms such as www.dawabazar.in and www.medindia.net. The Plaintiff is also stated to be promoting the said product through its website www.sagalabs.com.

16. The grievance of Plaintiff in the present case is that the Defendant No.1-Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. has also adopted an identical mark 'ULTRAMOL'. Defendant No.1 filed a trademark application bearing no. 1380082 in 2005 for the registration of the mark 'ULTRAMOL' in class 5 on 'proposed to be used' basis which is opposed by third parties. Defendant No.1 started using the mark 'ULTRAMOL' in 2006. Thereafter, other applications have been filed by the Defendant No.1 for the registration of the mark 'ARISTO ULTRAMOL' which are also opposed. The case of the Plaintiff is that the rights of the Plaintiff in the mark 'ULTRAMOL', which is being used by the Defendant No.1 in identical manner for identical pharmaceutical preparations i.e, paracetamol, deserves to be protected as the Plaintiff is the prior user.

19. Heard ld. Counsels for the parties.

20. From the documents placed on record and the stand taken by the ld. Counsel today, prima facie it appears that the Plaintiff is the prior adopter and user of the mark 'ULTRAMOL' for medicinal preparations. The Plaintiff also got the first approval from the Drug Authority for the manufacture of pharmaceutical preparations under the mark 'ULTRAMOL'. The mark that has been approved by the Drug Authority on 12th February, 2007 to be used by the Defendant No.1 is 'ARISTO ULTRAMOL'. However, Defendant No.1 is using the mark 'ULTRAMOL' on a standalone basis. Even on the packaging, the word 'ARISTO' is written in smaller size and is hardly readable. Thus, the Plaintiff's and Defendant No's.1 marks are identical. The products are also identical i.e., pharmaceutical preparations containing `Paracetamol'. Defendant No.1 is the subsequent user of the mark 'ULTRAMOL' and at best Defendant No.1's user since 2006, after 14 years, of the Plaintiff's adoption and use. Another fact which goes in favour of the Plaintiff are the undertakings which have been given by the Defendant No.1 to the Drug Authorities which read as under: