LR491 , 2001 INSC 173 , JT2001 (4 )SC 243 , 2001 (2 )RCR(Civil)579 , 2001 (3 )SCALE98 , (2001 )5 SCC73 , [2001 ]2 SCR743 , 2001 (1 )UJ669 , ,MANU/SC/0199/2001
B.N. Kirpal#Doraiswamy Raju#Brijesh Kumar#3626SC4750Judgment/OrderAIR#GLH#Gujarat Law Reporter#INSC#JT#MANU#RCR (Civil)#SCALE#SCC#SCR#UJB.N. Kirpal,Pharmaceutical#PharmaceuticalSUPREME COURT OF INDIA2014-5-15Registered Trade mark,Preliminary,Trade description,Preliminary,Defence,Infringement Action,Trade Marks,Permanent Injunction,Trade Marks,Permanent Injunction,Trade Marks,Permanent Injunction,Trade Marks,Ad-Interim Injunction,Trade Marks,Mandatory/Prohibitory Injunction,Class of Customer,Infringement of registered Trademarks,Effect of Registration,Deceptively similar,Preliminary,Injunctions: -Permanent/Temporary,Reliefs,Infringement Action,Similarity with earlier Trade Marks; Similar goods and services,Relative grounds for refusal of registration,The Register And Conditions For Registration,Rights conferred by registration,Effect of Registration,Basic requirements,Passing off action,Intellectual Property Rights,Law of Injunction19016,19019,755,754,4203,4205,747,4207,28484 -->
MANU/SC/0199/2001
True Court CopyTM EnglishTrue Court CopyTM Gujarati
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Appeal (civil) 2372 of 2001, SLP (C) 15994 of 1998
Decided On: 26.03.2001
Appellants: Cadila Health Care Ltd. Vs. Respondent: Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
B.N. Kirpal, Doraiswamy Raju and Mr. Brijesh Kumar JUDGMENT
B.N. Kirpal, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant and respondent are pharmaceutical companies manufacturing various pharmaceutical products. The two companies had taken over the assets and business of the erstwhile Cadila Group after its restructuring under Sections 391 & 394 of the Companies Act. One of the conditions in the scheme of restructuring of the Cadila Group was that both the appellant and the respondent got the right to use the name "CADILA" as a corporate name.
3. The present proceedings arise from the suit for injunction which had been filed by the appellant against the respondent in the District Court at Vadodara. The suit related to a medicine being sold under the brand name "Falcitab" by the respondent which, according to the appellant, was a brand name similar to the drug being sold by it under its brand name "Falcigo"
4. The case of the appellant was that its drug "Falcigo" contains Articulate for the treatment of cerebral malaria commonly known as 'Falcipharum'. After the introduction of this drug, the appellant on 20th August, 1996 applied to the Trade Marks Registry, Ahmedabad for registration in Part-A, Class-5 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. On 7th October, 1996 the Drugs Controller General (India) granted permission to the appellant to market the said drug under the trade mark of "Falcigo". It is, thereafter, that since October, 1996 the appellant claimed to have started the manufacture and sale of drug "Falcigo" all over India.
5. The respondent company is stated to have got