Akash Pack Vs Today Tea

Diligence Required for Corporate Entities Seeking Exemption Under the Limitation Act:

Background of the Case:

The case under discussion involves Akash Pack (the appellant) and Today Tea (the respondent) in a money recovery suit. This dispute arose from a judgment and decree passed on October 3, 2018, by the Additional District & Session Judge-03, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in favor of Today Tea. Akash Pack, dissatisfied with the decision, sought to challenge the ruling through an appeal. However, the appeal was filed after a significant delay, leading Akash Pack to submit an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

The Limitation Act sets a statutory timeframe within which legal proceedings must be initiated. In cases where a party seeks an extension of this timeframe, it is required to demonstrate “sufficient cause” for the delay. Failure to comply with these time limits results in the loss of the right to file an appeal. Hence, Akash Pack’s application for condonation of delay became the key issue for the court to resolve.

Issue of the Case:

The central issue for the court was whether Akash Pack's delay in filing the appeal could be condoned and whether the appeal should be heard on its merits. The crux of the legal question revolved around whether Akash Pack, as a corporate entity, had exercised the due diligence expected of it and whether it had provided a credible and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal.

Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the court has the discretion to allow delayed filings if "sufficient cause" is demonstrated. In this case, the court needed to determine if Akash Pack’s explanation met this standard.

Legal Framework: Section 5 of the Limitation Act:

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, allows a court to condone delays in filing appeals or applications when “sufficient cause” is established. However, the Act does not define what constitutes “sufficient cause,” leaving it to the discretion of the court.

The law requires parties seeking such relief to show that the delay was caused by factors beyond their control or that they acted diligently, even though they missed the statutory deadline. Courts have emphasized that though the law of limitation should be interpreted liberally to avoid injustice, "sufficient cause" cannot be a tool for litigants to bypass deadlines due to negligence or inaction.

Contentions of the Parties

Akash Pack (Appellant):

The appellant attributed the delay in filing the appeal to administrative exigencies, citing that an official responsible for handling the litigation had left the organization. This sudden departure led to a loss of track regarding the proceedings, causing the appeal to be filed after the statutory period had elapsed.

The appellant argued that the court should adopt a liberal approach in interpreting the law of limitation, especially since the substantive rights of Akash Pack would be adversely affected if the appeal was not heard. They also contended that the trial court’s judgment was flawed, particularly in its interpretation of the sale of goods and other legal aspects. Therefore, denying the appeal would lead to a miscarriage of justice.

Today Tea (Respondent):

Today Tea opposed the condonation of delay, asserting that Akash Pack failed to provide a sufficient cause for the delay. The respondent emphasized that as a corporate entity, Akash Pack should be held to a higher standard of diligence in managing its legal affairs.

The respondent pointed out that corporate entities are equipped with sufficient resources and professional staff to ensure compliance with statutory deadlines. Akash Pack’s failure to track its litigation reflected a lack of due diligence and should not be excused.

They further argued that the appellant’s negligence should not result in prejudice to the respondent, who had acquired valuable accrued rights due to the lapse of time.

Issues Dealt with by the Court

The court had to consider the following key issues:

Interpretation of “Sufficient Cause”: Whether Akash Pack's explanation for the delay in filing the appeal fell within the definition of “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Corporate Diligence: Whether a corporate entity like Akash Pack should be held to a higher standard of care and responsibility when managing litigation, given its resources and professional infrastructure.

Balance of Rights: Whether condoning the delay would unfairly prejudice Today Tea, considering the accrued rights it had gained due to the passage of time and Akash Pack’s inaction.

Substantial Justice vs Procedural Lapses: Whether the interest of substantial justice outweighed procedural lapses in this case, and whether denying the appeal would lead to injustice for Akash Pack.

Court's Analysis and Reasoning:

Sufficient Cause and Administrative Lapses: The court scrutinized the reasons provided by Akash Pack for the delay. The appellant claimed that an official responsible for managing the litigation had left the company, resulting in a loss of track of the case. However, the court found this explanation to be inconsistent and unsatisfactory. Akash Pack, as a corporate entity, is expected to have internal mechanisms for handling legal matters, and the departure of a single employee cannot be deemed a sufficient cause for such a long delay.

The court noted that the appellant had not provided documentary evidence or a clear timeline to justify the delay, further weakening their claim. The court emphasized that corporate entities are expected to exercise greater diligence in handling their legal obligations, given their resources and organizational capacity.

Corporate Diligence: The court observed that Akash Pack, as a corporate entity, should have been more proactive in tracking its legal proceedings. The company’s failure to do so demonstrated negligence rather than an unavoidable circumstance. Courts have consistently held that corporate entities must maintain systematic records and ensure that litigation is managed by capable professionals. Failure to do so cannot be excused under the guise of administrative lapses.

The court reiterated that while individuals may sometimes be granted leniency for delays due to personal difficulties, corporate entities cannot seek the same indulgence. The law expects higher standards of diligence from such entities, especially when dealing with legal proceedings.

Accrued Rights of the Respondent: The court also took into account the rights accrued to Today Tea due to the passage of time. The respondent had obtained a favorable judgment, and condoning the delay would effectively deprive the respondent of the finality of that judgment. The court held that substantial justice requires a balance between the rights of both parties. In this case, Akash Pack’s inaction should not result in prejudice to the respondent’s legitimate rights.

Final Decision: After considering all the facts, the court found that no sufficient cause had been established to condone the delay. The appellant’s explanations were found to be vague, inconsistent, and contrary to the records. Moreover, the court held that corporate negligence cannot be a ground for condonation under the Limitation Act. Consequently, the court dismissed Akash Pack’s application for condonation of delay, thus upholding the rights of Today Tea.

Conclusion:

This case underscores the principle that corporate entities are expected to exercise a high degree of diligence when seeking exemptions under the Limitation Act. Courts have repeatedly emphasized that while the law of limitation should be interpreted in a liberal manner, it cannot be rendered ineffective due to the negligence or inaction of the appellant, particularly when it involves a corporate entity with ample resources to manage its legal affairs. The court’s decision affirms the importance of balancing procedural justice with substantive rights and protecting the accrued rights of respondents who have relied on the statutory limitations to secure finality in legal disputes.

Case Citation: Akash Pack Vs Today Tea: 27.09.2024: RFA 303/2020:2024:DHC:7486:Delhi High Court: Girish Kathpalia, H.J.

Written by: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney] United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com, Phone: 9990389539

Disclaimer:

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Akemi Chemisch Vs Devki Nandan Malik

Passing off protects the goodwill of a business from misrepresentation

Background of the Case:

The present matter before the High Court of Delhi involves Akemi Chemisch Technische Spezialfabrik GmbH (plaintiff) versus Devki Nandan Malik trading as Delhi Hardware and Engg Works (defendant). The case revolves around allegations of intellectual property infringement, with the plaintiff asserting that the defendant is selling counterfeit products that unlawfully bear the plaintiff’s trademarks and copyrighted materials. The case is being heard under the jurisdiction of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which govern procedural aspects for civil litigation and commercial disputes in India.

Facts of the Case:

Akemi Chemisch Technische Spezialfabrik GmbH, a German-based company, is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling high-quality adhesives and stone care products. It has gained substantial goodwill in the market, with its trademarks enjoying widespread recognition. The defendant, operating under the name Delhi Hardware and Engg Works, is alleged to be selling counterfeit products falsely representing them as genuine Akemi products.

The plaintiff claims that these counterfeit goods are not only substandard and inferior but also hazardous, damaging both the plaintiff’s reputation and posing a risk to consumer safety. As a result, the plaintiff has filed a suit for trademark and copyright infringement, along with an application for an interim injunction to restrain the defendant from continuing its unlawful activities.

Legal Issues:

The key legal issues in this case are:

Trademark Infringement: Whether the defendant has infringed the plaintiff's registered trademarks by selling counterfeit products under the same or deceptively similar marks.

Passing Off: Whether the defendant's conduct amounts to passing off, where the defendant has created confusion among consumers by falsely representing their counterfeit goods as those of the plaintiff.

Copyright Infringement: Whether the defendant has violated the plaintiff’s copyright by using packaging, labels, or promotional material that copies or imitates the plaintiff's original works.

Public Safety and Consumer Protection: Whether the sale of counterfeit products poses a danger to consumers, given the inferior quality and potential hazardous nature of the goods.

Trademark Rights: The plaintiff contends that their trademarks have acquired secondary significance, meaning they have come to be closely associated with their business and products. Any use of these marks by the defendant would create confusion in the market, misleading consumers to believe they are purchasing genuine Akemi products when, in fact, they are being sold inferior, counterfeit goods.

Passing Off and Infringement: The plaintiff alleges that the defendant is engaged in the practice of passing off their products as genuine Akemi products, which constitutes trademark infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The plaintiff claims that this not only causes irreparable harm to its brand and reputation but also misleads and deceives consumers.

Copyright Infringement: The plaintiff argues that the defendant has copied the packaging, labels, and branding of Akemi products without permission, infringing on the plaintiff’s copyrighted material.

Consumer Safety: The plaintiff asserts that the sale of counterfeit products poses serious risks to consumers, as these products are of substandard quality, potentially hazardous, and could cause damage to property or health.

Legal Analysis:

Trademark Infringement and Passing Off: Under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, a registered trademark is considered to be infringed if an identical or deceptively similar mark is used in relation to goods or services without the trademark owner's consent. In this case, the court observed that the defendant was using marks identical or confusingly similar to those of the plaintiff, leading to a clear case of trademark infringement.

Additionally, the common law principle of passing off protects the goodwill of a business from misrepresentation. By selling counterfeit goods under the Akemi name, the defendant is engaging in passing off, leading consumers to falsely believe they are purchasing genuine Akemi products, thereby damaging the plaintiff’s brand.

Copyright Infringement: Under the Copyright Act, 1957, copyright protects the artistic, literary, and aesthetic elements of a product, including packaging, labels, and promotional material. The defendant’s unauthorized use of packaging and branding similar to that of the plaintiff constitutes copyright infringement. This aspect of the case highlights the defendant’s attempt to pass off counterfeit goods by copying the "trade dress" of Akemi products, which is protected under copyright law.

Consumer Safety: The issue of public safety also plays a critical role in this case. The plaintiff has convincingly demonstrated that the counterfeit products being sold by the defendant are not only substandard but also hazardous, posing a potential risk to consumers. This is a matter of public concern, and the court recognizes the need to protect consumers from such dangerous, counterfeit goods.

Interim Injunction and Court’s Ruling:

Based on the strength of the plaintiff’s arguments, the court was persuaded to grant an interim injunction against the defendant. The injunction restrains the defendant from:

Manufacturing, selling, or distributing counterfeit products bearing the plaintiff's trademarks;

Using any marks deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered trademarks;Infringing upon the plaintiff’s copyright through unauthorized use of similar packaging or branding;Engaging in any acts of passing off that create confusion in the marketplace.The court emphasized that the sale of counterfeit products not only violates the plaintiff’s intellectual property rights but also poses a significant threat to consumer safety. As a result, the court granted the injunction to prevent further harm to the plaintiff’s business and to safeguard public interest.

Conclusion:

In cases involving the sale of counterfeit goods, the defendant has no legal right to sell products that infringe upon the intellectual property of another party. The court’s decision in this case highlights the importance of protecting trademark owners from the sale of counterfeit products, which can cause irreparable harm to their business and reputation. Additionally, the court underscored the need to protect consumers from the dangers of substandard and hazardous counterfeit goods.

Case Citation: Akemi Chemisch Vs Devki Nandan Malik: 21.08.2024: CS(COMM) 706/2024: Delhi High Court: Mini Pushkarna, H.J.

Written by: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney] United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com, Phone: 9990389539

Disclaimer:

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Zydus Wellness Products Vs Mr Prashant Desai

Disparagement and Limitation for Social Media Influencer

Background of the Case:

This case involves a legal dispute between Zydus Wellness Products Limited (the plaintiff) and Mr. Prashant Desai (the defendant). Zydus Wellness is a prominent player in India's food and nutrition market, well-known for its popular brands such as 'COMPLAN,' 'Nycil,' 'Glucon-D,' and 'Sampriti.' The company has established a significant market presence with a strong reputation for quality. On the other hand, Mr. Prashant Desai is a social media influencer who has gained traction for sharing his views and insights on various products, including nutritional supplements.

The dispute arose when Mr. Desai uploaded a video concerning Zydus Wellness’s product 'COMPLAN,' which allegedly contains disparaging remarks about the product. The implications of this video prompted Zydus Wellness to take legal action against the defendant, leading to the current litigation.

Issue of the Case:

The crux of the issue revolves around the defendant’s actions, specifically the content of the video he posted. Zydus Wellness claims that the video disparages and denigrates their registered trademark 'COMPLAN,' thereby harming their brand's reputation. They are seeking a restraining order to prevent Mr. Desai from making further disparaging comments about their products, including 'COMPLAN' and 'COMPLAN PISTA BADAM.'

Contentions of the Parties:

Plaintiff's Contentions (Zydus Wellness Products Limited):

Allegations of Disparagement: The plaintiff contends that Mr. Desai's video is not only false but also malicious. They assert that the video has caused them special damage, satisfying the legal criteria for disparagement under Indian law. They draw upon precedents such as Dabur India Limited vs. Colortek Meghalaya Pvt. Ltd. and Hindustan Unilever Limited vs. Cavincare Private Ltd. to support their claims of reputational harm and seek legal remedies.

Impact on Reputation: Zydus Wellness argues that the content of the video could mislead consumers about the efficacy and quality of their products, leading to a decline in sales and loss of consumer trust. They emphasize the importance of protecting their brand image and maintaining the integrity of their registered trademarks.

Right to Protect Intellectual Property: The plaintiff maintains that they have the right to protect their intellectual property from false claims that could damage their business. They assert that the defendant's actions not only undermine their brand but also misinform the public regarding their products.

Defendant's Contentions (Mr. Prashant Desai):

Freedom of Speech: Mr. Desai argues that his video serves an informative purpose and is protected under the freedom of speech provisions enshrined in Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution. He contends that any restrictions on his ability to express his views should be carefully scrutinized and justified, especially when balanced against the public's right to information.

Credibility of Statements: The defendant claims to have a background in nutrition science and related fields, asserting that his statements are based on factual information. He believes that his expertise lends credibility to his critiques of the product, thereby serving the public interest by providing insight into nutritional choices.

No Malicious Intent: Mr. Desai asserts that his intention was not to disparage the product but rather to provide an honest review based on his knowledge and experience. He may argue that such reviews are commonplace in the digital age and contribute to consumer awareness.

Issues Dealt with by the Court:

In adjudicating this case, the court addressed several critical issues, including:

Territorial Jurisdiction: The court had to establish whether it had the jurisdiction to hear the case based on where the alleged disparagement occurred and where the parties are located.

Continuous Cause of Action: The court considered whether the actions of the defendant constituted a continuous cause of action that justified the plaintiff's request for relief.

Balance Between Freedom of Speech and Protection of Reputation: The court weighed the fundamental right to freedom of speech against the need to protect a brand’s reputation and intellectual property rights, particularly in the context of disparagement.

Criteria for Disparagement: The court examined the specific legal standards for determining whether disparagement had occurred, including whether the statements were false, misleading, and made with the intent to harm the plaintiff's reputation.

Defendant's Qualifications: The court considered the defendant's claimed expertise in nutrition and how it relates to the credibility of his statements about the plaintiff's product.

Reasoning and Final Decision:

After hearing the arguments and evaluating the evidence, the court concluded that Zydus Wellness had established a prima facie case for disparagement. The court reasoned as follows:

Lack of Basis in the Defendant's Claims: The court determined that the video uploaded by Mr. Desai lacked a factual basis and contained unverified claims that could harm the plaintiff's reputation. The statements made in the video were not substantiated by credible evidence, leading the court to believe that they could mislead consumers about the product’s value.

Potential for Consumer Confusion: The court acknowledged the likelihood that consumers could be confused by the defendant’s video, especially considering the direct references to the 'COMPLAN' brand. The potential for consumer misinterpretation and the adverse effect on the plaintiff’s sales were significant considerations in the court's ruling.

Infringement of Trademark Rights: The court concluded that the defendant, by mentioning and targeting the plaintiff's trademark 'COMPLAN' directly in the video, had infringed upon the plaintiff's trademark rights. Such actions were deemed unacceptable, especially given the absence of a legitimate purpose behind the disparaging remarks.

Limitations on Social Media Influencers: The court emphasized that even social media influencers must adhere to standards of truthfulness and fairness when discussing products. The defendant’s responsibility to provide accurate information was underscored, as misleading claims can lead to serious consequences for established brands.

Conclusion:

In light of the findings, the court issued a restraining order against Mr. Prashant Desai and anyone acting on his behalf, prohibiting them from publishing, uploading, or disseminating the impugned video or any content that could disparage the 'COMPLAN' brand. This decision highlights the critical balance between freedom of expression and the need to protect intellectual property rights and reputations in the era of social media influence.

Case Citation: Zydus Wellness Products Vs Mr Prashant Desai: 26.09.2024: CS(COMM) 684/2024: 2024:DHC: 7432: Delhi High Court: Saurabh Banerjee, H.J.

Written by: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney] United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com, Phone: 9990389539

Disclaimer:

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Sun Pharmaceutical Vs J.B. Chemicals

Trademarks "RACIRAFT" and "RANRAFT" Held to Be Deceptively Similar:

Background of the Case:

This case concerns a dispute between Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., the plaintiff, and J.B. Chemicals, the defendant, over the use of trademarks related to pharmaceutical products. Sun Pharmaceutical, a company established in 1978 as a proprietary firm and later converted into a partnership in 1982, has a long history of marketing, manufacturing, and trading pharmaceutical goods. Over the years, it has gained a reputation for its products in the pharmaceutical industry and has established trademarks for its goods, including the trademark "RACIRAFT."

J.B. Chemicals, on the other hand, is a company involved in a similar business. The defendant sought to use the trademark "RANRAFT" for its pharmaceutical products, which led to a conflict with Sun Pharmaceutical. The crux of the dispute is whether the defendant’s trademark "RANRAFT" infringes upon the plaintiff's registered trademark "RACIRAFT."

Issue of the Case:

The core issue in this case is whether Sun Pharmaceutical is entitled to seek an injunction restraining J.B. Chemicals from using the trademark "RANRAFT." Sun Pharmaceutical asserts that the defendant's mark is deceptively similar to their registered trademark "RACIRAFT," creating a likelihood of confusion among consumers.

Sun Pharmaceutical contends that their mark, having been in use earlier and having acquired a registered status, should be protected under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The defendant's application for trademark registration of "RANRAFT" is still pending, and Sun Pharmaceutical argues that the use of this mark infringes upon their exclusive rights as the registered proprietor of "RACIRAFT."

Contentions of the Parties:

Plaintiff's Contentions (Sun Pharmaceutical):

Sun Pharmaceutical made several key arguments in support of its claim:

Deceptive Similarity: Sun Pharmaceutical argued that the trademarks "RACIRAFT" and "RANRAFT" are deceptively similar, especially in the way they are pronounced and perceived by consumers. The plaintiff highlighted that both trademarks share a common prefix ("RA") and suffix ("RAFT"), which creates a high degree of resemblance. Given that the goods involved (pharmaceutical products) are often purchased by consumers who may not pay close attention to minor differences, Sun Pharmaceutical claimed that the similarity between the marks could lead to confusion.

First Use and Registration: Sun Pharmaceutical emphasized that they were the first to enter the market with their trademark "RACIRAFT" and that they are the registered proprietors of the mark. They argued that, as the prior adopter and user, their rights over the trademark should be respected, and any subsequent use of a similar mark by another party would amount to infringement.

Likelihood of Confusion and Consumer Protection: The plaintiff contended that the adoption of the mark "RANRAFT" by the defendants would likely mislead consumers into believing that the defendant's products are associated with or originate from Sun Pharmaceutical. This could lead to dilution of the plaintiff's brand and goodwill. Moreover, in the context of pharmaceutical products, which are often prescribed by doctors or purchased by patients with limited knowledge of the specifics, any confusion could result in serious harm to consumers.

Injunction Against Infringement: Sun Pharmaceutical argued that the defendant's use of the trademark "RANRAFT" should be immediately restrained by an ad interim injunction, as the continued use of a deceptively similar mark would cause irreparable harm to their business and reputation. They further emphasized that the defendant's pending application for registration of "RANRAFT" could not be used as a defense, as registration does not confer the right to infringe upon a previously registered mark.

Defendant's Contentions (J.B. Chemicals):

While the document does not provide the specific arguments raised by the defendants, in such cases, defendants typically present the following defenses:

Distinctiveness: The defendant may argue that their trademark "RANRAFT" is sufficiently distinct from the plaintiff's mark "RACIRAFT" and that there are notable differences in terms of appearance, pronunciation, and market positioning. They may contend that consumers are unlikely to confuse the two brands.

No Likelihood of Confusion: The defendant could assert that there is no real likelihood of confusion between the trademarks, particularly if the products are marketed through different channels or cater to different groups of customers. They may claim that their target market can easily differentiate between the two brands.

Pending Registration: The defendant might point out that their application for the registration of the trademark "RANRAFT" is still pending, and they are entitled to use the mark until the matter is resolved.

Issues Dealt with by the Court:

The court had to examine several key aspects in determining whether an interim injunction should be granted in favor of Sun Pharmaceutical:

Degree of Resemblance Between the Trademarks: The court analyzed the visual, phonetic, and structural similarities between the trademarks "RACIRAFT" and "RANRAFT." The focus was on whether an average consumer with an imperfect recollection could distinguish between the two marks, particularly given the similarity in their prefixes and suffixes.

Nature of the Products: The court considered the nature of the goods being sold under the trademarks, both of which involved pharmaceutical products. Since pharmaceuticals are goods that affect health and are often prescribed by medical professionals, even a small amount of confusion could have serious implications.

Trade Channels and Consumer Base: The court assessed the channels of trade and targeted customers for both parties' products. Since pharmaceutical goods are typically purchased by the general public, which may not scrutinize trademarks closely, the risk of confusion was heightened.

Legal Principles on Deceptive Similarity: The court referred to legal precedents and the principles laid out in the Trade Marks Act regarding deceptively similar marks and the rights of registered proprietors. These principles guide courts in determining whether a mark infringes upon the rights of a trademark owner.

Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Harm: The court considered whether the balance of convenience lay in favor of the plaintiff or the defendant. The court had to assess whether the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted and whether the defendant's business would be unfairly affected by the injunction.

Reasoning and Final Decision:

After carefully reviewing the arguments and evidence presented by the plaintiff, the court concluded that the trademarks "RACIRAFT" and "RANRAFT" were indeed deceptively similar. The court’s reasoning was based on the following factors:

Similarity of the Marks: The court found that both trademarks shared a common structure and sound, with only slight differences in the middle letters. Both marks began with the letters "RA" and ended with "RAFT," creating a strong likelihood that an average consumer with imperfect recollection might confuse one mark with the other. The court emphasized that in trademark law, it is not necessary for the marks to be identical; it is enough if there is a substantial similarity that could cause confusion.

Imperfect Recollection and Consumer Confusion: The court noted that consumers purchasing pharmaceutical products often rely on their imperfect recollection of trademarks. Given the similarity between "RACIRAFT" and "RANRAFT," consumers could easily be misled into thinking the products were from the same source, especially since both products fall within the pharmaceutical category.

Registered Proprietor’s Rights: The court reaffirmed that Sun Pharmaceutical, as the registered proprietor of the trademark "RACIRAFT," held the exclusive right to use the mark. The defendant’s pending application for the registration of "RANRAFT" did not grant them the right to use the mark if it infringed upon an already registered trademark.

Balance of Convenience: The court found that the balance of convenience favored Sun Pharmaceutical. The plaintiff had a long-standing reputation in the market, and allowing the defendant to use a deceptively similar mark would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff’s business, reputation, and goodwill. The court also noted that the defendant had not established any compelling reason why they should be allowed to continue using the infringing mark.

Final Order:

The court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Sun Pharmaceutical, restraining J.B. Chemicals and its directors, assignees, licensees, and other related parties from manufacturing, selling, advertising, or offering for sale any products under the trademark "RANRAFT" or any other mark that is deceptively similar to "RACIRAFT." This injunction was issued to protect the plaintiff’s trademark rights while the case continued to be litigated.

Conclusion:

The court’s decision in this case reaffirms the importance of protecting registered trademarks from deceptive imitation, especially in industries such as pharmaceuticals where consumer confusion could have serious consequences. The ruling underscores the need for businesses to carefully evaluate the similarity of their trademarks to avoid infringing upon the rights of established brands.

Case Citation: Sun Pharmaceutical Vs J.B. Chemicals: 12.09.2024: CS(COMM) 369/2024: 2024:DHC: 7430: Delhi High Court: Saurabh Banerjee, H.J.

Written by: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney] United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com, Phone: 9990389539

Disclaimer:

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.