Temporary:
Within the captioned matter, the Ld. Trial Courtroom restrained the Defendant type utilizing the mark MEDILICE put up lengthy drawn trial and awarded punitive damages of sum of Rs. 10 Lakhs towards the Defendant. Moreover, the mark MEDICLICE was declared WELL-KNOWN by the Ld. Courtroom.
Plaintiff:
Wings Prescribed drugs Pvt. Ltd.
Defendant:
Kirit Bhadiadra
Competing Marks:
MEDILICE (Equivalent)
Nature of the Swimsuit:
Swimsuit for infringement, passing off, unfair competitors, rendition of accounts, and supply of impugned items, and so forth.
Competing Product Description:
Anti-lice shampoo – Plaintiff
Hair Oil – Defendant
Registration Standing of Plaintiff:
The Plaintiff adopted the commerce mark MEDILICE in 1998 for the manufacturing of anti-lice shampoo. The Plaintiff turned the registered proprietor of the commerce mark MEDILICE on November 19, 2014, beneath class 3. This registration stays legitimate and in impact.
Defendant’s Registration Standing:
The Defendant has additionally utilized for registration of the mark MEDILICE at school 5, which is at the moment pending.
Points raised:
1. Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled for everlasting injunction restraining the defendant / its brokers, and so forth. from infringing the plaintiff’s commerce mark MEDILICE as alleged. ?
2. Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled for decree for everlasting injunction restraining the defendant for passing off their items as plaintiff’s items through the use of trademark MEDILICE?
3. Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled for rendition of accounts?
Evaluation:
Judgments:
Computerized Electrical Ltd Vs I L Ok Dhwan (1999) 19 PTC 81 (Dimmerdot)
- Defendant utilized for registration can’t argue that the mark is descriptive.
Midas Hygiene v. Sudhir Bhatia (2004) 3 SCC 90
- In case of infringement injunction must comply with
Solar Pharma Industries Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd., 2009 (108) DRJ 207 (Para 8, 11, 23)
- Third celebration can’t problem an project between the plaintiffs.
Glaxosmithkline Prescribed drugs Ltd. vs. Horizon Bioceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. 2023 SCC On-Line Del 2065
- Widespread to register doesn’t show that they’re frequent to commerce.
Allergan v. Chetana Pharma, 2007 (34) PTC 267 (Cal) (SJ), Para 11
- Mere manufacturing license doesn’t show utilization.
Microsoft Company v. Rajendra Pawar & Anr., (36) PTC 697 (Del)
- The place the conduct of the erring celebration is discovered to be egregiously invidious and calculated to mint earnings for his personal self, awarding punitive damages prevents the erring celebration from making the most of its personal fallacious by escaping prosecution or detection
Reddy Laboratories Ltd. (Dr.) Vs. Reddy Prescribed drugs Restricted, 2004 SCC OnLine Del 668 (2004) 76 DRJ 6161
- to say the defence of acquiescence, there needs to be a tacit or an specific assent by the plaintiff to the defendant’s utilizing the mark and in a means encouraging the defendants to proceed with the enterprise. It’s as if the plaintiff desires the defendant to be beneath the assumption that the plaintiff doesn’t regard the motion of the defendant as being violative of the plaintiff’s rights.
Hindustan Pencils (P) Ltd vs India Stationery, AIR 1990 Del 19
- the house owners of logos or copyrights can’t be anticipated to run after each infringer and thereby stay concerned in litigation at the price of their enterprise time, however can wait until the time the consumer of their identify begins harming their enterprise pursuits and begins deceptive and complicated their clients.
Emcure Prescribed drugs Ltd. V. Corona Cures Pvt. Ltd. MANU/MH/1SS0/2014
- mere failure to sue with no optimistic act of encouragement is not any defence and is not any acquiescence
Reduction:
A decree for a everlasting injunction has been issued in favor of the Plaintiff. This injunction restrains the Defendant from dealing in beauty/medicinal preparations beneath the impugned mark MEDILICE, its variants, or every other commerce mark that is perhaps deceptively much like the Plaintiff’s commerce mark MEDILICE, thereby constituting infringement and passing off.
Compensation:
The Plaintiff can also be entitled to punitive damages amounting to Rs. 10 Lakhs, along with the prices of the swimsuit.