CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD Vs. DIAT FOODS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining passing off of the trademark "SUGAR FREE", its dilution, damages and rendition of accounts, delivery up, etc. The appellant claimed that in the year 1988, alow calorie table-top sweetener without natural sugar containing an artificial sweetener was introduced under the trademark "SUGAR FREE". This product contained "Aspartame" which contains only 2% of its calories. The applications filed for registration of the trademark were pending. The sales have been large and from 1988 onwards, around Rs.216.40 crores sales have occurred.

(2.) The appellant alleged that the respondent had introduced "Sugar Free Cookies" with "SUGAR FREE" written in big size fonts in bright red colour. It is this "SUGAR FREE", which has been emphasized while "Cookies" is written in a small running font size in a pale brown colour so as to make it almost unreadable. The respondent is stated to have filed an application for registration of the trademark "SUGARLESS" and / or "SUGARLESS Bliss". The packaging of the respondent also states that the product had been "Sweetened with Splenda Brand". The "Splenda Brand" is actually a competitor of the "SUGAR FREE" product of the appellant. This "Splenda" is also written in small letters.

(3.) The appellant along with the suit filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( hereinafter to be referred to as, "the said Code" ) and ad interim ex-parte order was granted on 05.02.2008 restraining the respondent from using the trademark "SUGAR FREE" as a brand-name or any other mark, which is identical or deceptively similar to the appellant's mark.