Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)Section 29 in The Drugs And Cosmetics Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
The Drugs And Cosmetics Act, 1940
The Trade Marks Act, 1999
Section 34 in The Drugs And Cosmetics Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 28 in The Drugs And Cosmetics Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Cadila Laboratories Ltd. And Anr. vs Dabur India Limited on 31 March, 1997
The decision in
Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd (supra) has been relied upon by the learned
counsel for the plaintiffs to submit that derivative drugs from the same bulk
drug may have different therapeutic values. It was submitted that while
both the plaintiffs and the defendant are manufacturing and marketing
Temozolomide, their products are not interchangeable and may have
different therapeutic values. Consequently, consumers may be deceived
into purchasing the defendant's product thinking that it would have the
IA 2226/2007 in CS(OS)361 /2007 Page No.15 of 17
same therapeutic value as that of the plaintiffs' products. This argument
cannot be accepted because it proceeds on the basis of an assumption that
the plaintiffs' products are superior to the defendant's product. At this
prima facie stage such an assumption cannot be made. Moreover, the
defendant has a drug licence under the Drug and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and
no presumption can be drawn that the defendant's product is not a quality
product.
1