JAGSONPAL PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED Vs. SENOR LABORATORIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has filed a suit for injunction against the defendant on the ground of passing off the trade mark SEFLOX used by the plaintiff for manufacturing its pharmaceutical preparations, now used by the defendant and selling products in the same name SEFLOX.

(2.) In para 5 of the plaint the plaintiff has stated that it has filed an application for registration under Applicant No 589743 in relation to medicinal and pharmaceutical products falling in class 5 of the Fourth Schedule of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The application was published in the Trade Mark Journal on the 1st February 1993. In para 7 the plaintiff has stated thus: That the Plaintiffs trade mark SEFLOX has already become distinctive and associated with the aforesaid goods on account of its long, continuous, extensive and exclusive user thereof. The public at large associates the said trade mark to the aforementioned goods of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has been using the said trade mark exclusively and to the exclusive of others. On account of its extensive use, the said products of the plaintiff have acquired a vast reputation as a high quality product originating exclusively from the plaintiff. The plaintiffs goods and his business are dependent on the trade mark SEFLOX. The plaintiff has built up a valuable trade under the said trade mark as is evident from the yearwise sales mentioned as per Annexure 'C'. Annexure C is as under: SALES RECORD FOR SEFLOX RANGE <FRM>JUDGEMENT_748_DRJ38_1996Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) In para 10 the plaintiff has stated that the defendant has adopted the trade mark SEFLOX and had started manufacturing and marketing pharmaceutical products in or about first week of August 1995. The plaintiff received a notice from the defendant and the plaintiff replied by its registered letter dated 10th August 1995 through its counsel. It is the case of the plaintiff, that both the plaintiff and the defendant are operating the same line of business and the same markets and, therefore, there is likelihood of confusion, and if the defendant is permitted to do his business using the trade mark of the plaintiff the plaintiff will be put to great hardship and loss.