LUPIN Vs. JOHNSON AND JOHNSON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference has been made to the Full Bench pursuant to the order dated 13 August 2012 of learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram : B.R.Gavai,J.) for considering following question of law:

(2.) The learned Single Judge felt the need to make this reference in view of two decisions of the Division Benches of this Court, one holding that the Court can not go into the question of validity of registration of a trade mark when such defence is taken by the defendant at an interlocutory stage in a suit for infringement of registered trade mark (judgment dated 16 February 2005 in M/s.Maxheal Pharmaceuticles v/s. Shalina Laboratories Pvt.Ltd. Appeal No.88 of 2005 in N.M.No.2663 of 2004 in suit No.2663 of 2004) and the other decision in which the Court considered the validity of registration when such a defence was raised at an interlocutory stage J.K.sons v/s. Parksons Games & Sports & anr., 2011 47 PTC 443.

(3.) Looking to the length of the judgment, we would like to indicate its broad framework as under: <p><table class = tablestyle width="90%" border="1" align="center" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" style="font-family:Verdana"> <tr> <td><div align="center"><strong>Para nos.</strong></div></td> <td><div align="center"><strong>Particulars</strong></div></td> </tr> <tr> <td>3 to 5</td> <td>Facts.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>6</td> <td>Reasons &ndash; ordering reference.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>7</td> <td>Plaintiff's submissions.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>8</td> <td>Defendant's submissions.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>9</td> <td>Plaintiff's rejoinder.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>10 to 16</td> <td>Statutory provisions.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>17 to 23</td> <td>Legislative History.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>24 to 43</td> <td>Discussion.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>44 to 54</td> <td>Case law.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>55 to 57</td> <td>Further discussion.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>59</td> <td>Conclusions.</td> </tr> </table>