Ramesh Chandra Chopra JUDGMENT
Ramesh Chandra Chopra, J.
1. This order shall dispose of is No. 11847/2003 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is No. 302/2004 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. The facts relevant for the disposal of these two applications, briefly stated, are that the plaintiff, a Company engaged in the manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical products for the last over 19 years and having even overseas operations is marketing it as products under the trade mark "Dr. Reddy's". The plaintiff alleges that a logo representing a man with outstretched arms and word mark "Dr. Reddy's" was created in April, 2001 which was an original artistic work within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act. It was formally assigned to the plaintiff in December, 2002 and as such the plaintiff being the proprietor of the copyright is entitled to exclusive use thereof. The plaintiff has already applied for the registration of the trade mark in various countries including India. The registration process in Romania has already been completed. In para 6 of the plaint details of various subsidiaries owned by the plaintiff all over world starting with the name "Reddy" or "Dr. Reddy" are given and it is stated that the plaintiff exports bulk drugs as well as finished dosages of the formulations to over 100 countries including U.S.A., Russia and European Union. In the year 2002-2003, the exports of the plaintiff were to the tune of Rs.11,581 million.
3. In para 8 of the plaint, names of certain finished pharmaceutical preparations are given which have been developed on account of the research and development facilities established by the plaintiff and it is added that the plaintiff with a turnover of Rs.6803 million in the branded formulations has ranked 6th in the ORG-MARG rankings for the period ending June, 2003. It is averred that the aforesaid trading style is now synonymous with high quality pharmaceutical preparations worldwide and the trade mark which appears on the packaging of its products and logo of the plaintiff is recognised through the world as a source of origin of the plaintiff's products as well as quality.
4. According to plaintiff, the defendant's "Reddy Pharmaceuticals Limited" is a Company which was initially carrying on the business of purchase and supply of bulk drugs. The defendant has been purchasing bulk drugs from the plaintiff also since 1997 but at no stage of time the defendant was manufacturing or marketing its own pharmaceutical preparations. The activities of the defendant were in the nature of distributor/agent only to supply bulk drugs manufactured by the plaintiff to formulators without changing the packing or the label. Therefore, the activities of the defendant were in no way detrimental to the plaintiff and as such no objection was being raised to the use of the name "Reddy Pharmaceuticals Limited". On April 1, 2003, the defendant was even appointed a commercial Decreed agent for a period of one year for marketing the products of the plaintiff in the Northern region. However, in September, 2003, the plaintiff was astonished to learn that the defendant had gone beyond its initial. A perusal of the packing material of the products marketed by the defendant also demonstrated the dishonest intentions of the defendant inasmuch as the defendant had deliberately adopted the packing style in such a way so as to make a consumer believe that the products originated from the plaintiff.
5. In para 15 of the plaint details were given as to how the defendant was passing off its products as if those were the products of the plaintiff. It was stated........