Astrazeneca Uk Ltd. And Anr. vs Orchid Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals ... on 16 May, 2006
41. Referring to admission of the plaintiffs that four more companies are manufacturing `Meropenem' molecule with the prefix `Mero' it was emphasised that no action is initiated by the plaintiffs against these other companies and therefore even against the defendant they cannot have any legitimate grievance for use of mark 'Meromer'. The plaintiffs had not even filed the objection against the registration of trademark `Meromer' when it was advertised. According to the defendant the genesis of the plaintiffs' complaint is the perception of threat by them to their business on account of low price of the defendant's product and present action has been initiated in order to stifle competition in the market. Contending that balance of convenience is in favor of defendant, it was stated that the defendant has already launched its goods in the market in November,2004 and has already invested 1.68 crores in setting up the manufacturing unit. It is stated that goods worth about rupees 1.5 crores has been held up and in case injunction is not vacated, the defendant's goods may perish and will cause greater inconvenience and irreparable loss and hardship to the defendant. Relying on Novartis AG v. Wanbury Ltd. 2005 DLT 316; East African Remedies Pvt. Ltd. v. Wallace Pharmaceuticals 2003 (27) PTC 18; J.R. Kapoor v. Micronix India (1994) Supp 3 SCC 215; F. Hoffimann-La Roche and Co. Ltd. v. Geoffrey Manners and Co Pvt. Ltd., ; SBL Ltd. v. Himalaya Drug Co. 1997 PTC (17) 540; Indo Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals Ltd. AIR 1988 Madras 347; USV Ltd. v. Systopic Laboratories Ltd. 1004 (1) CTC 418; Aviat Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 2001 PTC 601 and Regency Sanitary Ware Pvt. Ltd. v. Madhusudhan Industries Ltd. 2001 PTC 482, it was contended that the interim order be vacated and the application for interim injunction filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed.