DABUR Vs. VIKAS PHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff -company is the registered proprietor of the trade mark 'HAJMOLA'. The plaintiff has prayed a suit for injunction restraining the defendant from infringing their registered trade mark. The plaintiff says that the defendants' trade mark HAZMOL is identical to and/or deceptively similar to the registered trade mark HAJMOLA. Only question that whether is a phonetic similarity between the HARMOL and HAJMOLA. The plaintiff claims that there is close similarity and this will led to confusion and deception. On November 12, 1980, Sh. R.N. Aggarwal, J. issued an ad interim injunction against the defendant restraining them from dealing in their product called HARMOL or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark HAJMOLA. The defendant opposed the injunction application. They say that this injunction order should be dissolved.

(2.) On behalf of the defendant Mr. Dalmia has raised three objections before me. One relates to court fees and jurisdiction value of the suit. The other two are on the merits of the claim. Firstly I take up court fee and jurisdiction.

(3.) The plaintiff has claimed four reliefs in the plaint. One is for permanent injunction restraining infringement of their registered trade mark. This relief is valued at Rs. 200.00 for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fees. The second relief is for permanent injunction against passing of. The suit is valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction Rs. 200.00. The third relief is for destruction of the impugned labels. This has also been similarly valued as the two earlier ones. The fourth relief is for decree for account. Here he has valued the suit at Rs. 200,00 for the purpose of court fee. For purpose of jurisdiction his relief for account is valued at Rs. one lac. The value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction taking all the reliefs in account is stated Rs. 1,00,600.00.