Fact of the Case
Johnson & Johnson, a global healthcare company, filed a suit against Pritamdas Arora and others for trade mark infringement, counterfeiting, and passing off. The case arose when a counterfeit version of Johnson & Johnson's surgical hemostatic device, SURGICEL, was discovered in a U.S. hospital. Investigations traced the source back to the defendants in India, who were allegedly manufacturing and distributing counterfeit SURGICEL products globally.
Procedural Background (in brief)
In 2019, Johnson & Johnson filed a suit in the Delhi High Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. In October 2019, the Court granted an ad-interim injunction against the defendants and appointed Local Commissioners to search and seize counterfeit products. Between November 2019 and April 2024, multiple court orders were issued, directing investigations and reports on the defendants' whereabouts as they became untraceable. The defendants failed to comply with court orders and were declared ex-parte in December 2022. Between April 2023 and February 2025, the plaintiff provided substantial evidence of counterfeiting, including invoices, bank records, and seized counterfeit goods. In March 2025, the Court pronounced its judgment, ruling in favor of Johnson & Johnson.
Reasoning of the Court
The plaintiff established proprietary rights over the trade marks ‘SURGICEL’, ‘ETHICON’, and ‘LIGACLIP’. Evidence proved that the defendants were engaged in manufacturing and selling counterfeit surgical devices. The defendants' actions endangered public health by distributing substandard medical devices. The Court noted the defendants’ evasion of legal proceedings, fraudulent activities, and involvement in money laundering. The defendants’ conduct warranted stringent action, including compensatory and exemplary damages.
Decision
A permanent injunction was granted, restraining the defendants from using Johnson & Johnson’s trademarks. The Court awarded compensatory damages of ₹2,34,82,986 in favor of the plaintiff. Exemplary damages of ₹1,00,00,000 were imposed on the defendants. The plaintiff was permitted to destroy the counterfeit products. The plaintiff was also entitled to recover actual litigation costs.
