Bombay High Court Grants Permanent Injunction in Trademark Infringement Case - Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Cherryb Pharma. The court held that the defendant's use of the mark 'REWITAL' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark 'REVITAL' and amounted to infringement and passing off under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.

High Court: Bombay High Court In Favour of Prosecution
  • 81
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The plaintiff, Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant, Cherryb Pharma, under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and the Copyright Act, 1951. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was manufacturing, marketing, and selling pharmaceutical preparations under the trademark 'REWITAL', which was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'REVITAL'. The plaintiff sought to restrain the defendant from using the mark and from passing off its goods as those of the plaintiff. The court, by order dated 19th December 2003, granted ad interim relief ex parte in terms of prayer clause (a), which has been in operation since then. Subsequently, by order dated 7th June 2004, leave was granted to amend the suit and notice of motion. The court, after considering the material on record, confirmed the ad interim relief and granted a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff, restraining the defendant from using the mark 'REWITAL' or any deceptively similar mark. The court held that the marks were deceptively similar and the defendant's use amounted to infringement and passing off.

Headnote

A) Trademark Law - Infringement - Deceptive Similarity - Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the trademark 'REWITAL' which was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'REVITAL'. The court granted ad interim relief ex parte and later confirmed it, holding that the marks were deceptively similar and the defendant's use amounted to infringement and passing off. (Paras 1-3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the defendant's use of the trademark 'REWITAL' is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark 'REVITAL' and amounts to infringement and passing off.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court granted the notice of motion and confirmed the ad interim relief, granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the trademark 'REWITAL' or any deceptively similar mark.

Law Points

  • Trademark infringement
  • Passing off
  • Deceptive similarity
  • Interim relief
  • Trade and Merchandise Marks Act
  • 1958
  • Copyright Act
  • 1951
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2005:BHC-OS:16413

Notice of Motion No. 3713 of 2003 in Suit No. 3960 of 2003

2005-10-27

Anoop V. Mohta J.

2005:BHC-OS:16413

Mr. M.P.S. Rao for the plaintiff.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Suit for permanent injunction restraining trademark infringement and passing off.

Remedy Sought

Permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the trademark 'REWITAL' or any deceptively similar mark.

Filing Reason

Defendant's use of the mark 'REWITAL' allegedly infringing plaintiff's registered trademark 'REVITAL'.

Previous Decisions

Ad interim relief granted ex parte on 19th December 2003; leave to amend granted on 7th June 2004.

Issues

Whether the defendant's trademark 'REWITAL' is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark 'REVITAL'. Whether the defendant's use amounts to infringement and passing off.

Submissions/Arguments

Plaintiff argued that 'REWITAL' is deceptively similar to 'REVITAL' and causes confusion. Defendant did not appear or contest.

Ratio Decidendi

The marks 'REVITAL' and 'REWITAL' are deceptively similar, and the defendant's use amounts to infringement and passing off under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.

Judgment Excerpts

The present notice of motion has been taken out by the plaintiff in a suit filed for invoking the provisions of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and Copyright Act 1951 and claimed a permanent injunction restraining the defendant... By order dated 19th December, 2003 on this notice of motion, the learned Single Judge after considering the material on the record granted ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a)...

Procedural History

Suit filed in 2003; notice of motion taken out; ad interim relief granted ex parte on 19th December 2003; leave to amend granted on 7th June 2004; final order on notice of motion on 27th October 2005.

Acts & Sections

  • Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958:
  • Copyright Act, 1951:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Grants Permanent Injunction in Trademark Infringement Case - Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Cherryb Pharma. The court held that the defendant's use of the mark 'REWITAL' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark 'REVI...
Related Judgement
High Court Court Orders Bank to Refund Rs. 76.9 Lakhs in Unauthorized Transaction Case. Judgment Reinforces Zero Liability for Customers Reporting Unauthorized Transactions Promptly