Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (1.07 seconds)
Documents citing Lupin Ltd vs Johnson And Johnson on 23 December, 2014

M/S. Dia Health Foods Pvt. Ltd vs M/S.Diabliss Consumer Products Pvt. ... on 6 September, 2018

7.2 The learned Judge has also gone through the email as well as the other documents of the defendants and in paragraph No.35 of his order and he has observed that the documents produced by the defendants does not inspire confidence, that the details regarding the creator of the artistic design, namely Rajinder Singh, is absent and even in the affidavit, Rajinder Singhs father name is not given and moreover, the certificate have been prepared in Indian Non-Judicial Stamp Papers and attested by the very same person, and those stamp papers were consecutive in number. Whereas the documents produced by the plaintiff are from the year 2015 onwards, they are contemporaneous in date and period, and that apart, the documents produced by the plaintiff inspire more confidence than the documents produced by the defendants. The learned Judge has also recorded in his findings that the defendants products bear the very same design of the plaintiff and that the first defendant being the distributor of the plaintiff, he could not claim more rights than his principal and also noted the statement of the plaintiff that the defendants taking advantage of being a distributor for plaintiff, had created their own design and are marketing the products under the name DIABEAT. The learned Judge has also taken into consideration the decision of the Bombay High Court in Suit (L) No.1842 of 2012, dated 23.12.2014, [Lupin Limited Vs. Johnson and Johnson] cited by the defendants and has distinguished the said judgment, by observing in paragraph No.30 of his order that in the case on hand, the distributors namely the defendants who have been appointed by the plaintiff, has usurped the artistic design of the plaintiff and had only interchanged the word, DIABLISS with DIABEAT and had commenced operations and had produced two documents from Rajinder Singh, whose details are not disclosed and as such, this Court can always step in to protect the copyright design of the plaintiff. The learned Judge has also relied on Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and the decision rendered by this Court Lalgudi G.Jayaraman Vs.Cleveland Cultural Allliance [MANU/TN/2297/2008] and recorded his finding in paragraph No.42 of his order that no explanation has been given as to why such documents and No Objection Certificates were not obtained immediately by the second defendant, as those documents were dated 12.03.2018 and the alleged artistic work was said to have been created in May 2015 and that the affidavit and the NOC given by Rajinder Singh are also not contemporaneous. The learned Judge, taking into consideration the rival submissions and the materials placed before him, have reached the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for and accordingly allowed the application in O.A.No.480 of 2018 and dismissed the application in A.No.4015 of 2018 filed by the defendants for vacating the interim order granted on 28.04.2018, vide his order dated 11.07.2018.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mgm Healthcare Private Limited vs Varamm Healthcare Private Limited on 29 September, 2023

9. The judgment relied by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in the case of Lupin Ltd v. Johnson and Johnson, 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 501 is a case decided on a reference. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that where the registration of the trade mark is ex facie illegal, fraudulent or shocks the conscience of the court, the court is not powerless to refuse grant of an injunction, but for establishing these grounds, a very high threshold of prima ___________ Page 12 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.S.A. (CAD) Nos.120 and 121 of 2023 facie proof is required, and it is, therefore, open to the court to go into the question of validity of registration of the plantiff's trade mark to arrive at a prima facie finding. The Full Bench in the said case further held that a very heavy burden lies on the defendant to rebut the strong presumption in favour of the plaintiff. It was further held that though it is considered as a practice of the Bombay High Court of granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff having a registered trade mark, the same cannot be treated as a total embargo on the power of the court to refuse grant of interim injunction.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - P D Audikesavalu - Full Document
1