Case Title: Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Indorbit Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd.:Case No.: CS(COMM) 912/2024: 2025:DHC:3758:Date of Order: May 14, 2025:Court: High Court of Delhi:Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Facts: Torrent Pharmaceuticals claimed that Indorbit Pharmaceuticals adopted a trade dress for its product ORBITCAL-500 that was deceptively similar to Torrent's SHELCAL-500 label and packaging used for calcium and vitamin D3 supplements. Torrent asserted that it had acquired rights to its trade dress through an assignment and had applied for trademark registration. The defendant’s packaging was noticed in the market in September 2024, leading Torrent to file a suit for infringement and passing off, seeking a permanent injunction.
Procedural Details: Torrent filed the suit and obtained an ex parte ad interim injunction. The defendants neither appeared nor filed a written statement despite service, leading to their rights being closed and the defendants being proceeded against ex parte. Torrent then moved for a decree under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, based on the defendants’ failure to contest the case and the similarity of packaging.
Issue: The primary issue was whether the court could pass a decree under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC in favor of Torrent, primarily based on the allegedly similar trade dress, without full trial evidence, considering the provisions and limitations under the CPC, especially given the disputed questions of fact regarding the adoption and usage of the trade dress.
Decision: The court rejected Torrent's application for a decree under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC at this stage. It observed that Torrent failed to establish with sufficient evidence that it was the prior adopter and user of the new trade dress before the defendant. The court emphasized that the threshold for granting such a decree was high and required that Torrent prove its case through evidence, not merely on the basis of pleadings or the absence of defense. Since the case involved disputed facts and the defendants had not entered appearance, the court held that trial was necessary for a proper adjudication.
