USV LIMITED Vs. SYSTOPIC LABORATORIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O.A. No. 95 of 2003 is an application for injunction restraining the respondent from dealing with medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations under the trademark PIO, PIO-15 and PIO-30, which are identical with or deceptively similar to the applicant's trademark PIOZ-15 and PIOZ-30, pending the suit. Since the second respondent is outside the jurisdiction of this Court, applicant prayed for leave to sue, which was granted on 22-01-2003. According to the applicant, the first respondent had its office within the jurisdiction of this Court and had effected sale of the products bearing the offending trademark within the jurisdiction of this Court.

(2.) Notice was ordered in the injunction on 28-01-2003. The first respondent filed its counter. The first respondent filed application No. 1396 of 2003 for issuance of notice to the applicants as to why they should not be prosecuted for their acts of perjury and for making false statements. Both the applications were taken up for hearing.

(3.) According to the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, Mr. P. Chidambaram, the words PIO and PIOZ have hardly any difference. The applicant had prior user, so the respondent must be injuncted from using the word PIO. The order dated 26- 06-2002 in Application No. 230 of 2002 in C.S. No. 234 of 2002 was produced. The same applicant had obtained an injunction against another person who marketed the medicine under the name PIOZED. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the decision in the other case applies to the present one. After the injunction was granted against use of the trademark PIOZED the parties entered into a compromise. The defendant in that suit agreed to amend its trademark from PIOZED to PIOMED. According to the learned Senior Counsel the respondent herein should also amend its mark so that it is distinct from the applicant's.