SMITH KLINE BEECHAM PLC Vs. LALITBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present suit is filed by the plaintiffs seeking for a decree of permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark and also copyright of the plaintiff and also for a decree restraining passing of and for rendition of accounts.

(2.) The plaintiffs are engaged in the manufacture, marketing and distribution of various pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations including that of ZENTEL, which according to the plaintiffs is an invented word having no dictionary meaning. The plaintiffs are also the registered owner of the trade mark ZENTEL as the said trade mark is registered in the name of the plaintiff No. 2. The plaintiffs also claim copyright on the aforesaid product stating that the said product is being sold in India since 1986 in a distinctive packaging, which is substantially based on the wave pattern appearing on the ZENTEL international pack. The plaintiffs have also stated that the plaintiffs have spent huge amount in advertising and promoting the aforesaid product in India.

(3.) It is alleged that the defendants adopted the trade mark LETNEZ in relation to similar product containing the same salt, the said salt, which is manufactured and marketed by the defendants. It is stated that by the aforesaid adoption of the trade mark LETNEZ as well as the product packaging of the plaintiffs' reputed product ZENTEL, the defendants have infringed the trade mark as also the copyright of the plaintiffs and, therefore, the present suit is filed seeking for a decree of permanent injunction restraining violation of the trade mark and of the copyright. The defendants at one stage entered appearance through their counsel. However, no written statement and reply to the injunction application were filed. Subsequently, the counsel appearing for the defendants also stopped appearing in the suit. In that view of the matter, it was ordered that the suit will proceed exparte as against the defendants.