SMITHKLINE BEECHAM PLC Vs. UMESHBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit is instituted to restrain infringement and passing off of the trademark PANADOL and the copyright in the packaging as of in relation to the product CROCIN both belonging to plaintiffs. The suit was initially instituted against three defendants of which the plaintiffs settled with the defendant No. 3 and the name of the defendant No. 3 was ordered to be struck off from the array of defendants vide order dated 19th July, 2004 The defendants 1 and 2 could not be served at their address given by the plaintiffs, as were not found there, and were ultimately served by publication and ordered to be proceeded ex parte vide order dated 3rd October, 2005. The plaintiff has led ex parte evidence.

(2.) THE plaintiffs have, by ex parte evidence, proved that the trademark panadol is registered in the name of M/s Winthrop Products Incorporated. The plaintiffs claim to be assignee of the said trademark from M/s Winthrop Products incorporated and application for registration of the assignment has been deposed to be pending with the Registrar of Trademarks.

(3.) THE defendants adopted the trademark PANAMOL in relation to same goods. It is further in evidence that the defendants have, for marketing the same goods under the trademark PANAMOL, used a blue blister strip packing and swirl device which the plaintiffs use for manufacturing and marketing CROCIN tablets and syrups.