Full Text
CS(GOMM) 84/2016 &lAs No.1773/2016 (u/0 39 R-1&2 CPC), 1775/2016 (u^S 65A &65B of Evidence Act) &1776/2016 (u/O 26
R-9CPC) ^ .....Plaintiff .
Through: Mr. Amit Jain, Adv. . , I , • / • • 'Versus , i , • - ,• ^ •
' ; . COOPER PHARMA LTD _ ..... Defendant , ; . Through: Mr. Rajiv Bajaj, Adv. .
14.09.2016
ORDER
1. The plaintiff has sued for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from manufacturing, exporting, selling, offering for; sale, ' exhibiting,, advertising or otherwise\ dealing in pharmaceuticals and medicinalpreparations under"the trademark 'KARAN' with the logo 'K' or - aiiy other identical / deceptively similar mark to the plaintiffs trademark. # 'KARAN' with the logo 'K' amounting to infringement of registered trademark No.1701997 in Class: 05 and.for ancillary reliefs. -, '2. The suit was entertained and vide interim order dated 8* February, 2016 the defendant restrained froni manufacturing and selling, > including exporting its products with the trademark -KARAN' or 'KAPAH with the logo of 'K' ofthe plaintiff or with any other trademark which is I CS(COMM) 84/2016. Page1of[3] 2016:DHC:8471, deceptively similar to the plaintiffsregistered trademark, the said.interim': order continues in force/= Vide the same order, commissioners, were appointed to visit the premises ofthe defendant and to seize the infringing goods., •
3. The defendant has filed a written statement.
4. Replication filed by the plaintiffis stated to be lying under objections.
5. The suit is ripe for framing ofissues.; • 6. The counsel for the. defendant states that the defendant in its written statement has set out the circumstances in which the defendant iised the trademark qua which the suit has beenJiled and otherwise the defendant has no objection.to suffer a, decree for permanent injunction, as sought by the plaintiff, subject to the plaintiffwithdrawing the claim for damages. '
7. The counsel for the defendant also states that the commissioners appointed by this Court did not find any infringing goods in the premises of the defendant and thus the question ofthe plaintiffbeing entitledto the relief of delivery of infringing goods does notarise.
8. The counsel for the plaintiff agrees.: '
9. The counsel for the plaintiff also states that he has no instructions whether theplaintiffiswilHng towithdraw theclaim for damages.
10. - This Court need not to await the instructions to be-received by the counsel for the plaintiff.. -.
11. The question of awarding the damages arises when the defendant is found to have infringed / passed off the goods as that of the plaintiff with impunity. That is not the case here. The defendant here, atthe outset in its. CS(COMM) 84/2016 - ", Page2of[3] written statement took such stand and even now has offered to suffer a decrec. ~.
12. In these circumstances, no case for award ofany damages or inquiring into damages is made out.;
13. There is thus no impediment to the suit being disposed of
14. Adecree of permanent injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in terms of prayer paras 30(a) to (c) ofthe plamt and the otherreliefs claimed in the plaint are denied.
15. The parties are also left to bear their own costs. I Decree sheet be drawn up.
SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 bs.. CS(COMM) 84/2016 IV SAHAIENDLAW, J. Page 3 of[3]