CADILA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. SWISS PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether "SUPERDAC" medicine manufactured, marketed and sold by the respondent herein contains a mark which is deceptively similar or identical with the mark "SPARDAC", a product of the appellant, is a question at controversy between the parties in this First Appeal.

(2.) The appellant above named has preferred this First Appeal under section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, 'the Code') against the judgment and decree dated 25.8.2000 recorded by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad, in Civil Suit No.4754/98 under which the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit of the appellant -original plaintiff and further directed the appellant -original plaintiff to pay to both the respondents herein cost of the suit and to bear their own costs in the suit.

(3.) The main grievance of the appellant before the trial court was that the appellant had already marketed a medicine named SPARDAC somewhat over a year before the institution of the suit. The appellant also contended before the trial court that the respondents have been manufacturing , marketing and selling a medicine named SUPERDAC and the said process has been started little before the institution of the suit. The appellant contended before the trial court that the mark SUPERDAC is deceptively and/or confusingly similar to the appellant's trade mark SPARDAC and thereby, the respondents have committed an act of passing off their product SUPERDAC as the appellant's product SPARDAC.