Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Neon Laboratories Ltd. Versus Medical Technologies Ltd. & Ors.

2016 (3) TMI 787 - SUPREME COURT

Temporary injunction - infringement of trademark - Held that:- As world shrinks almost to global village, the relevance of the transnational nature of a trademark will progressively diminish into insignificance. The attainment of valuable goodwill will have ever increasing importance. At the present stage, the argument in favour of the Defendant-Appellant that we find holds more water is that in both Milmet and Whirlpool, as distinct from the case before us, the prior user of the successful part .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

bearing on the rights of the parties. All these considerations will be cast into a curial cauldron to be appreciated by the Court before which the suit is being contested. In these premises, we cannot conclude that a prima facie case has not been disclosed by the Plaintiff-Respondents.

It is important to note that litigation was initiated by Plaintiff-Respondents, not Defendant-Appellant, even though the latter could have raised issue to Plaintiff-Respondents using a similar mark to t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ailable where the litigants are the same, since Sections 10 and 11 of the CPC would come into play. Unless restraint is displayed, judicial bedlam and curial consternation would inexorably erupt since an unsuccessful litigant in one State would rush to another State in the endeavour to obtain an inconsistent or contradictory order. Anarchy would be loosed on the Indian Court system. Since the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court is in seisin of the dispute, we refrain from saying anything mor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

two other factors in an interim injunction, namely the balance of convenience and an irreparable loss, are both in favour of the Plaintiff- Respondents, given the potential loss of goodwill and business they could suffer should an injunction be denied. The Defendant-Appellant has been injuncted from using the mark ROFOL since 2005, after having launched products bearing the mark only in the previous year, so the balance of convenience is in favour of allowing the injunction to continue. In Milm .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ted 19.12.2005 of the Learned Single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, who returned the opinion that the Trial Court had rightly granted an injunction in favour of the Plaintiffs (Respondents before us) till the disposal of the suit. 2 Briefly stated, the Plaintiff-Respondents 1 & 2 had filed a suit for injunction, damages and account of profits. The Plaintiff-Respondents are engaged in the business of manufacture and marketing of pharmaceutical products and medicinal preparat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

leaded that the predecessor-in-title of Plaintiff-Respondent No.1 had coined and invented the trademark PROFOL in April 1998 and not applied for registration of the said trademark on 24.5.1998 in Class V. However, it seems to us that this claim may not find acceptance inasmuch as PROFOL is almost an anagram of and is phonetically almost indistinguishable from the molecular compound, namely Propofol . In our opinion, to claim exclusivity of user, the trademark should normally partake of a new cre .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, it may nevertheless remain a favourable determinant in a passing- off action. So far as the subject trademarks are concerned, not only do their names constitute part of the generic drug Propofol , but they are also so similar that even the concerned medical practitioner/anaesthesiologist could fail to discern the difference between them. It has been pleaded in the plaint that the said predecessor-in-title has been openly employing this mark since April 1998. After amalgamating with its predece .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ceptively similar to the Plaintiff-Respondents trademark PROFOL. As is to be expected, the assertion in the plaint is that the Defendant-Appellant is marketing and passing off its products as that of the Plaintiff-Respondents. 3 This Court does not normally entertain appeals against interlocutory orders. In the case of trademarks, however, keeping in perspective the endemic delay in concluding cases/suits in India because of the exponentially increasing docket explosion, temporary ad interim inj .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dings or evidence. We shall restrict ourselves to reference in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India P. Ltd. 1990 Supp SCC 727, wherein it has been adumbrated that the Appellate Court ought not to reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to the existence or otherwise of three aspects - (a) whether a prima facie case in favour of the applicant has been established; (b) whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of the applicant; and (c) whether irreparable loss or damage will visit the applicant in the event injunctory relief is declined. We shall cogitate on the first factor first - is the law favourable to the applicant. 5 The primary argument of the Defendant-Appellant is that it had received registration for its tradem .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

though the latter could have raised issue to Plaintiff-Respondents using a similar mark to the one for which it had filed an application for registration as early as in 1992. The Defendant- Appellant finally filed a Notice of Motion in the Bombay High Court as late as 14.12.2005, in which it was successful in being granted an injunction as recently as on 31.3.2012. We may reiterate that every High Court must give due deference to the enunciation of law made by another High Court even though it .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nch of the Bombay High Court is in seisin of the dispute, we refrain from saying anything more. The Plaintiff-Respondents filed an appeal against the Order dated 31.3.2012 and the Division Bench has, by its Order dated 30.4.2012, stayed its operation. 6 It may be reiterated that the Plaintiff-Respondents asserts that their predecessor-in-interest had initiated user of the trademark PROFOL in 1998, when it commenced production thereof and Plaintiff-Respondents succeeded to the user of the mark up .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vidence. In this interregnum, the Plaintiff-Respondents had not only applied for registration but had also commenced production and marketing of the similar drug and had allegedly built up a substantial goodwill in the market for PROFOL. The legal nodus is whether the prior registration would have the effect of obliterating the significance of the goodwill that had meanwhile been established by the Plaintiff-Respondents. Would a deeming provision i.e. relating registration retrospectively prevai .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

has continuously used that trade mark from a date prior- (a) to the use of the first-mentioned trade mark in relation to those goods or services be the proprietor or a predecessor in title of his; or (b) to the date of registration of the first-mentioned trade mark in respect of those goods or services in the name of the proprietor of a predecessor in title of his; whichever is the earlier, and the Registrar shall not refuse (on such use being proved), to register the second mentioned trade mar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the entirety of the Section needs to be taken into consideration, in that it gives rights to a subsequent user when its user is prior to the user of the proprietor and prior to the date of registration of the proprietor, whichever is earlier. In the facts of the case at hand, the Defendant- Appellant filed for registration in 1992, six years prior to the commencement of user by the Plaintiff-Respondents. The Defendant-Appellant was, thus, not prevented from restraining the Plaintiff-Respondents .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

five years and three months from the date on which the trademark was registered, there was no bona fide use thereof. In the case in hand, prima facie, it appears that for over five years after a registration application was made by the Defendant-Appellant, the mark was not used. Facially, the Act does not permit the hoarding of or appropriation without utilization of a trademark; nay the Defendant-Appellant has allowed or acquiesced in the user of the Plaintiff-Respondents for several years. Th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

orded registration in respect of ROFOL which registration would retrospectively have efficacy from 19.10.1992, the situation would have been unassailably favourable to it. What has actually transpired is that after applying for registration of its trademark ROFOL in 1992, the Defendant-Appellant took no steps whatsoever in placing its product in the market till 2004. It also was legally lethargic in not seeking a curial restraint against the Plaintiff-Respondents. This reluctance to protect its .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

test has always enjoyed pre-eminence. We shall not burden this Judgment by referring to the several precedents that can be found apposite to the subject. In the interest of prolixity we may mention only N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation (1996) 5 SCC 714 and Milmet Oftho Industries v. Allergan Inc. (2004) 12 SCC 624. In Whirlpool, the worldwide prior user was given preference nay predominance over the registered trademark in India of the defendant. In Milmet, the marks of pharmaceutical prepar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ser even though it had been accorded registration of its trademark. Learned counsel for the Defendant-Appellant has endeavoured to minimise the relevance of Whirlpool as well as Milmet by drawing the distinction that those trademarks had attained worldwide reputation. However, we think that as world shrinks almost to global village, the relevance of the transnational nature of a trademark will progressively diminish into insignificance. In other words, the attainment of valuable goodwill will ha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e question before the Court would remain whether the situation on the date of application for registration alone would be relevant, or whether the developments in the period between this date and the date of grant of registration would have any bearing on the rights of the parties. All these considerations will be cast into a curial cauldron to be appreciated by the Court before which the suit is being contested. In these premises, we cannot conclude that a prima facie case has not been disclose .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version