UNIMED TECHNOLOGIES LTD. Vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs/applicants pray for grant of ad-interim injunction, restraining the respondents, their manufacturers, marketers, distributors, stockists, promoters, servants, agents, retailers, legal representatives, job-workers or any other person claiming under it from in any manner manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, stocking, advertising directly or indirectly dealing in medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations infringing 1st applicant registered trademark ZEMPRED by use of deceptively similar trademark ZENPRIDE or any mark deceptively similar to 1st applicant registered trademark ZEMPRED in any other manner whatsoever, pending disposal of the suit. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is pleaded as under:

(2.) Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/applicants contended, that the applicants have been using the mark ZEMPRED continuously and uninterruptedly from the year 2006, while the respondents entered the market only from March 2012 to the knowledge of the applicants. With a long and continuous use of the mark coupled with the high quality pharmaceutical products manufactured under the mark ZEMPRED, the applicants have acquired great reputation and goodwill and the nefarious activities of the respondents in infringing the 1st applicants registered mark, will have an adverse impact on their business and cause confusion in the minds of trade and public. We submit that should the respondents be allowed or permitted to continue with their wrongful and illegal acts as aforesaid, the applicants goodwill and reputation with the public at large as also the market would be seriously deteriorated. In any event being a later entrant to the market, the respondents cannot enjoy the benefits of the bulwark and palladium established by the applicants with the continuous and long use of the mark. In the circumstances, unless the reliefs sought for hereunder are granted, the applicants would be put to grave hardship and would be seriously prejudiced. In such event, the balance of convenience clearly rests in favour of the applicants.

(3.) Inspite of opportunity, no counter has been filed, nor there was representation on behalf of the respondents/defendants, when the case was called for hearing.