Background: The dispute involves New Life Laboratories Private Limited (plaintiff) and NLCARE Private Limited (defendant), both engaged in the homeopathic medicine business. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant infringed its registered trademark "NEW LIFE" by using the mark "NEW LIFE" and its abbreviation "NL" in its corporate name and products. The case traces back to Dr. Mohammad Idrees, who began practicing homeopathy in Bhopal in 1952, followed by his son, Dr. Mohammad Ilyas, who adopted the "NEW LIFE" trade name in 1970 after patients referred to his treatments as giving them a "new life."
Plaintiff's Claims: The plaintiff, incorporated in 1995 by Dr. Ilyas and his family, asserted exclusive rights to the "NEW LIFE" trademark, registered in 2013 under Class 35 for trading and marketing pharmaceutical preparations. The plaintiff argued that Dr. Ilyas, who founded the business, transferred all rights to the plaintiff company, which invested significantly in developing homeopathic medicines under the "NEW LIFE" brand. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, formed in 2019 by former directors and family members of Dr. Ilyas, infringed the trademark by using "NEW LIFE" and "NL" in its corporate name, packaging, and marketing, thereby passing off its products as those of the plaintiff and eroding its goodwill.
Defendant's Defense: The defendant, led by Dr. Ilyas’s sons Mohammad Zaki and Faizan Mohammad, contended that the "NEW LIFE" trademark originated with Dr. Idrees in 1952 and was used by multiple family members across various clinics and shops in Bhopal for decades. The defendant argued that the trademark was a family-owned asset, with no single entity, including the plaintiff, entitled to exclusive rights. They highlighted that the plaintiff’s registration was limited to a specific label and color scheme, not the word mark "NEW LIFE." The defendant also accused the plaintiff of suppressing material facts, including a prior Delhi High Court suit where no interim injunction was granted, and provided evidence of widespread family use of the trademark since 1975.
Court Proceedings: The plaintiff filed for an interim injunction (G.A. (Com) No. 1 of 2024) to restrain the defendant from using the "NEW LIFE" mark, securing an ad-interim ex-parte order on August 19, 2024. The defendant countered with an application (G.A. (Com) No. 2 of 2024) to vacate the order. The case was heard in the Calcutta High Court, Commercial Division, with arguments concluding on March 7, 2025, and judgment delivered on April 29, 2025.
Court's Findings: Justice Krishna Rao found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for exclusive rights over the "NEW LIFE" trademark. The court noted contradictory statements in the plaintiff’s pleadings, such as claiming exclusive use since 1970 while admitting family-wide use. The defendant’s evidence, including an affidavit from Dr. Idrees’s son, Dr. Mugees Siddiqui, confirmed that approximately 20 family-run shops used the "NEW LIFE" name without objection. The court also criticized the plaintiff for suppressing details of the Delhi High Court proceedings, where similar relief was denied. Citing precedents like Shri Ram Education Trust vs. SRF Foundation, the court held that a family trademark benefits all heirs unless explicitly excluded, and the plaintiff’s registration did not confer exclusivity over the word mark.
Decision: The court vacated the interim order granted to the plaintiff, dismissed G.A. (Com) No. 1 of 2024, and allowed G.A. (Com) No. 2 of 2024. The plaintiff’s request for a stay on the order was refused, affirming the defendant’s right to continue using the "NEW LIFE" trademark pending further proceedings.
Case Title: New Life Laboratories Private Limited Vs. NLCARE Private Limited
Date of Order: April 29, 2025
Case No.: G.A. (COM) No. 1 of 2024
Name of Court: High Court at Calcutta
Name of Judge: Hon’ble Justice Krishna Rao
