EXPHAR SA Vs. EUPHARMA LABORATORIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The issue in these appeals is whether the High Court of Delhi has the jurisdiction under Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 to entertain a suit filed by the appellants and one other.

(3.) The suit was filed by the appellants and M/s. Shreechem Laboratories against the two respondents, the first of whom is the Director of the respondent No. 2. According to the plaint, the appellant No. 1 manufactures a medicine for the treatment of malaria. The medicine is sold under the trademark Maloxine in packaging having a distinctive get up, lay-out and design. The appellant No. 1 has claimed to be the owner of the copyright in the trade mark Maloxine. The plaint also contains a description of the distinctive carton in which the medicine is sold. According to the appellants, the appellant No. 1 had entered into a contract with appellant No. 2 by which the appellant No. 2 was authorised to manufacture tablets under the appellants trade mark for sale in the rest of the world apart from Nigeria. As far as Nigeria is concerned, the appellant No. 1 had entered into a contract with M/s. Shreechem Laboratories for manufacturing Maloxine. These agreements have been described as agency/manufacturing agreements. It is also averred in the plaint that the appellant No. 1 had entered into an earlier agreement with the second respondent but that agreement was terminated for reasons which are unnecessary to be considered by us in these proceedings. What is of importance is that respondent No. 2 wrote two letters to the second appellant and to Shreechem Laboratories dated 5th November, 1993 and 19th May, 1998, by which the respondents called upon the appellant No. 2 and Shreechem to cease and desist from manufacturing pharmaceutical preparations under the trade mark "Maloxine".