Tuesday, August 3, 2021
154,225FansLike
654,155FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe
Want create site? Find Free WordPress Themes and plugins.

Delhi HC Allows Sun Pharma Plea Seeking Direction To Restrain BDR Pharmaceuticals From Using Trademark LULIBET

Want create site? Find Free WordPress Themes and plugins.

The Delhi High Court on Friday allowing relief to the Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. directed the BDR Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd. restricting them from using trademark LULIBET or any other mark that is phonetically, structurally or visually similar to the plaintiff’s trademark LABEBET in a plea seeking a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from manufacturing, marketing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in medicinal preparations under the impugned mark LULIBET.

Single judge bench of Justice Jayant Nath of Delhi High Court while pronouncing its judgment through video conferencing noted that even if there was a delay on the part of the plaintiff in the filing of the present suit as has been claimed by the defendant, the same delay would not be sufficient to deter grant of injunction in favor of the plaintiff.”

The Court gave its judgment in a petition filed by the Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. seeking a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants etc. from manufacturing, marketing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in medicinal preparations under the impugned mark LULIBET or any other mark that may be visually, structurally or phonetically deceptively similar to the plaintiff‟s trademark LABEBET amounting to infringement of registered trademark of the plaintiff.

The respondents contended that if a plaintiff stands by knowingly and lets a defendant build up an important trade until it has become necessary to crush it, the plaintiff would be stopped by acquiescence. It would be fraudulent conduct to allow knowingly somebody to spend money to build a reputation and then try and crush it.

However, the court while rejecting the contention of the respondent observed that in the facts of this case it cannot be said that the plaintiff stood by knowingly and let the defendant build up its business.

The Court while disposing of the case stated that “The decree of permanent injunction shall be effective after two months from today. This period is being granted to enable the defendants to take appropriate remedial measures.”

JAN05062020SC7572017_114005

-India Legal Bureau

Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.

News Update

Manipur High Court disposes of PIL on water supply to Covid-19 containment zones in state

The PIL in Manipur High Court was filed by a resident of Chalou Maning Leikai that after the village was declared a Containment Zone, no water is available because water tankers are reluctant to come to the area to supply water.

Allahabad High Court seeks response of UP govt over continued suspension of Dr Kafeel Khan

The Allahabad High Court sought the response of the Uttar Pradesh Government regarding the continuing suspension of Dr Kafeel Ahmed Khan, a Paediatrician working with BRD Medical College, Gorakhpur for over four years.

For cutting 62 trees, Calcutta HC directs real estate major Emaar to pay Rs 40 crore penalty, plant 100 trees

A single-judge bench of Calcutta High Court while hearing a petition filed by Soumitra Kanti Dey directed real estate group Emaar India Limited to pay a penalty of Rs 40 crore and plant 100 trees for illegally cutting down 62 trees.
Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.