LAWS(DLH)-2008-7-277

FDC LIMITED Vs. AJAY G PIRAMAL

Decided On July 18, 2008
FDC LIMITED Appellant
V/S
AJAY G. PIRAMAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose IA No. 2265/08 in CS (OS) 334/2008, through which the plaintiff seeks an ad-interim injunction, restraining the defendants from infringing their trademark in their product "ELECTRAL".

(2.) The plaintiff is a company duly incorporated in India, having its registered office in Aurangabad and also an office in Delhi from where it carries on its business, of manufacturing medicinal and pharmaceutical formulations under a variety of trademarks. It claims to have, in 1968, adopted the trademark 'Electral' in respect of a medicinal preparation described as 'an oral formulation of physiologically important electrolytes in a granular carbohydrate base', used for dealing with dehydration due to diarrhoea, dysentery, shock etc. It is also averred that in 1973, the plaintiffs adopted a distinctively designed sachet/ wrapper label containing an original artistic work, lay-out and get up, which included a peculiar schematic arrangement of various features, paneling, blocks and a distinctive and unique colour scheme of green, white and black colours. The plaintiffs have obtained registrations under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereafter " the Act") for the word and for the label. Registrations were also obtained for the sachet and for the label of the mango flavour of the medicinal preparation. Further, the "Electral" label has also been registered under the Copyright Act, 1957 since 1972. The labels, sachets and the copies of the certificates in this regard gave been produced.

(3.) The suit avers that the plaintiff is a market leader in the said pharmaceutical preparation with a market share of 45.89% and has spent considerable amount of resources for promoting its brand. Figures relating to sales and promotional expenditure in this regard have been produced. These, coupled with the excellence of its product, adhering to WHO standards, it is averred, have resulted in tremendous goodwill and reputation not just among the traders but also among the public. The plaintiff also claims that said mark has acquired a secondary meaning in relation to the product. It is further averred that the plaintiff has been vigilant about safeguarding its trademark and has pursued litigation in various parts of the country.