PFIZER INC Vs. PIFER PHARMACEUTICALS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of plaintiff's application under Order 6 rule 17 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure seeking amendment to the plaint.

(2.) The plaintiff has filed this suit for injunction against the defendant seeking a restraint from manufacturing, selling, advertising, marketing or in any other manner whatsoever using PIFER, PIFOL or PIFSER or any other mark or name which is deceptively or confusingly similar to the plaintiff's trade mark and name PFIZER, either as a trademark or as the corporate or trade name or trading style, or part of a trademark, corporate name, trade name or trading style, as the case may be, or in any other manner whatsoever infringing the registered trademark PFIZER of the plaintiff or passing off its goods or business as and for the goods and business of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also sought a decree for mandatory injunction seeking the direction that the defendant should recall all the products and marketing, promotional and advertising material (including the web site at www.piferpharma.com) that bear or incorporate the offending marks/name PIFER, PIFOL or PIFSER and for a rendition of accounts and costs of the suit.

(3.) In the plaint filed by the plaintiff it was categorically contended that recently it was brought to the attention of the plaintiff that the defendant is carrying on business under the name and style of Pifer Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and selling its products under the trade mark PIFOL and PIFSER. The plaintiff also contended that a search on the Internet disclosed that the defendant has a web site at www.piferpharma.com and the word PIFER has been written in a manner to take an unfair advantage of the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also categorically contended that though the defendant is claiming to be in business since October 1994, the plaintiff believes that this is an exaggerated claim, as otherwise plaintiff would have acquired knowledge of the defendant had he been in business.