Friday, February 2, 2018

VEE EXCEL DURGS and PHARMACEUTICALS(P) LTD Vs HAB PHARMACEUTICALS and RESEARCH LTD

  
   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

  CS(OS) 1851/2008

  VEE EXCEL DURGS and PHARMACEUTICALS(P) LTD ..... Plaintiff
  Through : Mr. Anshuj Dhingra, Adv.


versus


  HAB PHARMACEUTICALS and RESEARCH LTD ..... Defendant
  Through : None.

  CORAM:
   HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

   O R D E R
   05.09.2008

  I.A.No.10721/2008 (exemption)
  Subject to the plaintiff filing the original documents of the
  photocopies placed on the record within four weeks, the application is allowed
  and disposed of.
  CS(OS) 1851/2008
  The plaint be registered as a suit. Issue summons to the defendant, on
  filing of process fee by the plaintiff within one week, by Regd. AD post,
  through ordinary process as also by courier, returnable on 17th December, 2008
  before the Joint Registrar for completion of service as also pleadings.
  I.A.No.10920/2008 (u/O 39 R-1 and 2 of CPC)
  Notice for the date fixed.
  The plaintiff has filed the accompanying suit for injunction, retraining
  infringement of copyright and trademark, etc., in respect of its pharmaceutical
  product ?VEGA ASIA?, in which it enjoys registered trademark and the registered
  copyright.
  It is a case of the plaintiff that it is engaged in the business of
  research, production, marketing and export of various pharmaceutical and
  medicinal products and preparations. The present suit is confined to the claim
  of the plaintiff in respect of its pharmaceutical product, ?VEGA ASIA? and the
  artistic works known as ?ROCKET PACKAGING? and ?BLUE PACKAGING?. Counsel for
  the plaintiff states that the plaintiff holds a valid and subsisting drug
  licence for manufacture and sale of the drug ?VEGA ASIA?. The counsel for the
  plaintiff further states that the plaintiff is also holder of a valid Import and
  Export Code for exporting the drug ?VEGA ASIA?, which is meant for erectile
  dysfunction disorders in the malehuman beings.
  He submits that the mark ?VEGA ASIA? is a coined word with no descriptive
  meaning and that it is a combination of two words, ?VEGA? and ?ASIA?. The
  plaintiff is stated to have designed and created various artistic works for the
  packaging of the aforesaid medicinal product and the same has been got
  registered not only under the Copyright Act, but the trade name ?VEGA ASIA? has
  also been registered in favour of the plaintiff with the Trademark Registry.
  Counsel for the plaintiff states that the defendant is engaged in the
  business of medicinal and pharmaceutical product and has started misusing the
  intellectual property of the plaintiff in the aforesaid registered copyright and


  trademark by producing and exporting the same product either in identical or the
  deceptively similar packaging or with identical and deceptively similar names or
  with a combination of both, so as to exploit goodwill and efforts of the
  plaintiff company. It is stated that the defendant has started exporting
  identical products as that of the plaintiff under ?ROCKET PACKAGING? and ?BLUE
  PACKAGING? bearing titles ?VEGA? and ?VEGA 100? to various countries outside
  India.
  He submits that a perusal of the products shows the manner in which the
  defendant is using the product and protected artistic work of the plaintiff and
  also the packaging used by the plaintiff resulting in infringement of the
  trademark and copyright of the plaintiff. He draws the attention of the Court
  to paras 18 and 20 of the plaint, wherein the plaintiff has set out a
  comparative chart showing the similarities between the plaintiff?s product and
  the defendant?s infringing product. In view of the above, counsel for the
  plaintiff states that the plaintiff is suffering immense loss of business and
  goodwill on account of the illegal activities of the defendant and is entitled
  to grant of an interim injunction.
  Having perused the averments made in the plaint as also the documents
  placed on the record, particularly, copies of the product of the plaintiff and
  that of the defendant, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is
  entitled to grant of an ex parte ad interim injunction against the defendant.
  Accordingly, till further orders, the defendant, its directors, agents,
  representatives and assigns are restrained from using the name, ?VEGA ASIA?,
  ?VEGA? or any other mark similar to that of the plaintiff?s and also from using
  packaging the known as ?ROCKET PACKAGING? and ?BLUE PACKAGING? or any other
  artistic work, design, outlay, colour scheme and get up which is deceptively
  similar to that of the plaintiff?s packaging duly registered in its favour.
  Provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure be
  complied with within one week.
  Dasti.



  HIMA KOHLI,J
  SEPTEMBER 05, 2008
  sk/KA


  14

___________________________________________________________________________

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

  06.01.2009 35#
  Present: None for the plaintiff.
  Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Pratibha M. Singh,
  Mr. Alankar Kirpekar and Ms. Archana Sachdeva, Advs. for the
  defendant.

   CS (OS) No.1851/2008

  The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining
  infringement of Copyright, infringement of trademark, rendition of accounts,
  damages, delivery up etc. The said suit along with the interim application came
  up for hearing on 05.09.2008 when in the main suit the summons were issued for
  17.09.2008 and in the interim application being IA No.10720/2008 the notice was
  fixed for the same day. Ad interim injunction was also issued which reads as
  under:-


  ?Accordingly, till further orders, the defendant, its directors, agents,
  representatives and assigns are restrained from using the name, ?VEGA ASIA?,
  ?VEGA? or any other mark similar to that of the plaintiff?s and also from using
  packaging the known as ?ROCKET PACKAGING? and ?BLUE PACKAGING? or any other
  artistic work, design, outlay, colour scheme
  -2-
  and get up which is deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff?s packaging
  duly registered in its favour.?
  The defendant filed the application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC being IA
  No.11669/2008 which was listed before the Court on 22.09.2008 when notice was
  issued to the non-applicant which was accepted and the defendant was directed to
  file the reply within four weeks with advance copy to the other side and the
  matter was again listed before the Joint Registrar on 17.12.2008.
  Another application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC being IA No.14352/2008 for
  vacation of the ex-parte ad-interim order dated 5.9.2008 was filed. The said
  application was disposed of and due to the urgency shown by the defendant the
  main application being IA No.10720/2008 and 11669/2008 (u/O 39 R 1 and 2 CPC and
  u/O 39 R 4 CPC) were listed for 09.02.2009.
  The defendant also challenged the ex-parte ad-interim order dated
  05.09.2008 before the Division Bench by filing of an appeal under Order 43 Rule
  1 CPC being FAO (OS) No.491/2008. The said appeal was disposed of with the
  direction that the hearing of the application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC and
  another pending application shall be heard by the Single Judge
  -3-
  on 06.01.2009. The order passed by the Division Bench on 19.12.2008 is
  reproduced hereunder:-
  ?Mr. Nayar, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, strongly presses
  that the interim injunction granted by learned Single Judge should be vacated
  especially on the ruling of this Court in FAO (OS) 331/2007, decided on 26th
  November, 2008 titled Ram Krishan and Sons Charitable Trust Ltd ?vs- IILM
  Business School, where we had been so persuaded keeping in perspective
  suppression of material facts.
  Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that a Reply to the
  Application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC)
  shall be filed within three days from today, with an advance copy to learned
  counsel for the Appellant. Learned counsel for the Respondent further submits
  that this Appeal may be disposed of with the observation that all pending
  applications shall now be listed before the learned Single Judge on 6th January,
  2009 for hearing and that Respondent/ Plaintiff herein in CS (OS) No.1851/2008
  shall not seek any adjournment on that date.
  In view of the statement of learned counsel for the Respondent. Reply to
  the Application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC be filed within three days,
  with an advance copy to the Appellant who may file
  -4-
  Rejoinder within three days thereafter. All pending applications be now listed
  for hearing before the learned Single Judge on 6th January, 2009. No
  adjournment shall be granted by learned Single Judge on the asking or on the
  default of the plaintiff.
  In these terms, the Appeal stands disposed of. Pending applications also
  stand disposed of. Dasti.?
  Today when the matter was circulated and shown in the typed
  supplementary list no one appeared on behalf of the plaintiff. The learned
  counsel for the defendant Ms. Pratibha M. Singh has informed the Court that the
  learned counsel for the plaintiff is aware about the fixing of the matter before
  this Court and she has also informed the other side that the matter would be
  taken up at 2.00 pm.


  When the matter was taken up at 2:00 PM still no one appeared on behalf
  of the plaintiff and the same was again put up at 3:00 PM. In the meanwhile
  another communication was given to the learned counsel of the plaintiff on phone
  that the matter will be taken up at 3:00PM but no one appeared on behalf of the
  plaintiff when the matter was called up.
  I have gone through the pleadings, documents and averment of the
  application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC r/w 151 CPC for vacation of the ex parte
  ad interim order the defendant has raised many grounds for vacation of
  -5-
  the ex parte ad interim injunction and has referred various paragraphs of the
  written statement in which it has been stated that the plaintiff is guilty of
  suppression of material facts as the plaintiff has not made the full disclosure
  at the time of filing of the suit and obtaining the ex parte orders and the
  plaintiff has also not come before this Court with clean hands.
  One of the arguments of the defendant is that the defendant filed a suit
  bearing Suit No.2426/2008 against one manufacturer M/s. Saviour Biotech Pvt.
  Ltd. before the Bombay High Court seeking to restrain it from acts of
  infringement of its trademark ?VEGA?. Vide order dated 07.08.2008 the ex parte
  ad interim injunction was granted by the Bombay High Court against the said
  manufacturer i.e. Saviour Biotech Pvt. Ltd. The Court Receiver was also
  appointed to take possession of the infringed goods and as per the compliance
  huge material was taken into possession under the trademark ?VEGA? by the Court
  Receiver. It is argued by the learned Senior counsel for the defendant that the
  plaintiff in the present case is the licensor of the said defendant i.e. Saviour
  Biotech Pvt. Ltd. who was manufacturing the products on behalf of the present
  plaintiff. It is also mentioned that the defendant?s application for
  impleadment of the present plaintiff in the suit filed by the defendant in the
  Bombay High Court is also pending.
  -6-
  The learned counsel for the defendant has argued that plaintiff himself
  has filed the copy of the agreement between the plaintiff herein and M/s.
  Saviour Biotech Pvt. Ltd. (defendant in suit no.2426/2008 pending in Bombay High
  Court) and therefore, it is clear that the plaintiff has not disclosed the said
  vital fact in the plaint about the earlier pendency of the suit filed by the
  defendant in the Bombay High Court and in the injunction application, therefore,
  the interim order is not sustainable. After hearing counsel for the defendant
  and having gone through the pleading, it appears that the plaintiff has failed
  to disclose the said fact in the plaint and in the interim application as
  alleged by the defendant in its application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC.
  Considering the overall fact and circumstances of the matter, I feel that
  till the next date of hearing i.e. 9th February, 2009 when the two applications
  being IA No.10720/2008 and IA No.11669/2008 are listed for hearing, interim
  order dated 5th September, 2008 granted in favour of the plaintiff is suspended.

   January 06, 2009 MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
  nn

__________________________________________________________________________

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


  FAO(OS) 172/2009 and CM Nos. 6521/2009, 6522/2009 and 6523/2009

  M/S VEE EXCEL DRUGS and PHARMACEUTICALS (P) LTD .... Appellant

  Through: Mr.S.K.Bansal and Mr. Tarun Singla, Advocates.


Versus

  M/S HAB PHARMACEUTICALS and RESEARCH LIMITED ..... Respondents
  Through : Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Pratibha M. Singh
  and Ms. Archana Sahadeva, Advocates.
  CORAM:
   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL
   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

   O R D E R
   06.05.2009



  Learned counsel for the appellant wishes to withdraw the appeal as he
  wants to file an application for amendment.
  The appeal along with all pending applications stand dismissed as
  withdrawn.

  MUKUL MUDGAL,J

___________________________________________________________________________


IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
  (15)

  CS(OS) 1851/2008

  VEE EXCEL DRUGS and
  PHARMACEUTICALS(P) LTD. ..... Plaintiff
  Through Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Adv.


versus

  HAB PHARMACEUTICALS and RESEARCH LTD. ..... Defendant
  Through Ms. Archana Sahadeva, Adv.


  CORAM:
   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

   O R D E R
   12.10.2009
  I.A. No. 10180/2009 (Order 6 Rule 17)
  No reply to this application has been filed. In view of the order dated
  6th May, 2009 passed by the Division Bench of this court in FAO(OS) No. 172/2009
  and averment made in the application, this application is allowed. The
  amended plaint is taken on record. IA stands disposed of.
  I.A. No. 10181/2009 (Order 39 Rule 1 and 2)
  No reply has been filed. Last opportunity is granted to the defendant to
  file reply within two weeks from today. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed by
  the plaintiff within two weeks thereafter.
  List on 22nd January, 2010.
  CS(OS) 1851/2008
  The amended written statement be filed by the defendant within four weeks
  from today. Replication thereto, if any, be filed by the plaintiff within four
  weeks thereafter.
  List on the date fixed.






  MANMOHAN SINGH, J
  OCTOBER 12, 2009
  SD

  ________________________________________________________________________

  

1 comment:

  1. If you are searching for any PCD Pharma Franchise Company then you are at the right place Pharma Franchise is a leading Pharmaceutical Company in India is known for its high quality products and best PCD Pharma Franchise Services at very low prices .

    ReplyDelete

Featured Post

WHETHER THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARK IS REQUIRED TO BE SUMMONED IN A CIVIL SUIT TRIAL PROCEEDING

WHETHER THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARK IS REQUIRED TO BE SUMMONED IN A CIVIL SUIT TRIAL PROCEEDING IN ORDER TO PROVE THE TRADEMARK  REGISTRA...

My Blog List

IPR UPDATE BY ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

IPR UPDATE BY ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

Search This Blog