9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll known organization in the field of manufacturing, sale and distribution of pharmaceuticals and medicines since 18.09.1985. It enjoys a very high reputation for its products because of excellent quality and efficiency. Its total turnover runs into crores of rupees. The plaintiff is proprietor of more than 150 brands in its portfolio. It operates all over India in various States. The plaintiff has given details of the sales for the year 1998-99 to 2007-08 in para (6) of the plaint. 3. Further case of the plaintiff is that well known trademark "COLISPAS" was adopted and used by the plaintiff and its predecessors in business since the year 1986. Mankind Pharma, one of the members of the group companies of the plaintiff adopted the trademark ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rote a letter to the office of the Drug Licensing & Controlling Authority, Uttrakhand and apprised them about the illegal use of the trademark "COLISPAS" by defendants No.1 & 2. However, no action was initiated. On 27.04.2009, the plaintiff issued a cease and desist notice to defendant No.2. On 15.05.2009, the defendants through their attorney replied it and demanded certain information which was given by letter dated 24.06.2009. It is alleged that the defendants have adopted the identical trademark "COLISPAS" for the medicinal preparations knowingly that it is owned and used by the plaintiff and its predecessors. The adoption and use by the defendants is an attempt to create confusion and deception amongst the purchasing public. The defend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the statement. From the unchallenged testimony of the plaintiff, it can be concluded that the use of trademark "COLISPAS" being adopted and used by the plaintiff for the last more than 23 years in relation of the medicines and pharmaceutical preparations by the defendants for their products is bound to cause confusion and deception in the mind of the customers. No justification has been shown by the defendants No.1 & 2 for the use of similar trademark of the plaintiff for its medicinal products which has distinctive character and composition. It is stated that the salt used by the plaintiff in its products is Mefenamic Acid, Dicyclomine Hydrochloride : colour - Tartrazine (Ex.PW-1/9), whereas the salt used by the defendants in their produ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t available. The justification given by the Court for award of compulsory damages was to make up for the loss suffered by the plaintiff and deter a wrong doer and like-minded from indulging in such unlawful activities. 11. In "Larsen and Toubro Limited vs. Chagan Bhai Patel‟, MIPR 2009 (1) 194, this Court has observed that it would be encouraging the violators of intellectual property, if the defendants notwithstanding having not contested the suit are not burdened with punitive damages. 12. In "Time Incorporated vs. Lokesh Srivastava and anr.‟, 2005 (30) PTC 3 (Del) while awarding punitive damages Rs. 5 lacs in addition to compensatory damages also of Rs. 5 lacs, R.C.Chopra, J. observed that it was time the Courts dealing act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
