RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED Vs. INDKUS BIOTECH P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This notice of motion has been taken out by the plaintiff against the defendant in reference to the trade mark "revital" of the plaintiff and "rabital" of the defendant by invoking the provisions of Trade and merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (for short "trade Mark Act") and Copyright Act, 1957 (for short "copyright Act") on the foundation of passing of and infringement to trade mark, Copyright and rendition of accounts for profit as contemplated under the Acts.

(2.) The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its Business office at Ranbaxy House, Plot 89, 15th Road, MIDC, andheri (E) , Mumbai-400 093.

(3.) The trade mark "revital" is one of the well known product of the plaintiff company. The said trade mark is a nutritional category product (ginseng with multi vitamins and minerals) The said product is available in India and abroad. The said trade mark has been continuously in use since 1988. The word "revital" was adopted by the plaintiffs, which is coined, unique and an invented word. The said word is registered with the Trade Mark Registry having its registration No. 447972 in class No. 05. The plaintiff have got the registration of trade mark REVITAL, renewed upto the year 2006. The plaintiff has also got the copyright registered for the cartons under the provisions of copyright Act. 3. The plaintiff as per the market strategy and requirement took various steps to have the labels, network, blocks, dies stationery and sales promotional materials in relation to the trade mark. Accordingly the said product is in the market and can be purchased by the consumer and or layman without any prescription of Doctor. The wide publicity has been made involving huge expenditure amounting to corers of Rupees during the short period of launching in the market, and earned tremendous reputation. The product "revital" is identified exclusively with the plaintiff and no one else. The product as well as photographs are also a part of the record and specially to years 1996 to 2002. All these documents and materials in support of the above averments are exhibited and part of the record including various supporting literatures. The plaintiff therefore, by virtue of prior adoption and long, continuous and extensive user apart from large scale publicity has acquired an commendably and envitable reputation in the minds of traders and of the public being exclusive product of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's right of exclusive use, need no further discussion. Therefore, any attempt by any person to use deceptively similar marks without the consent would definitely amounting to violation of plaintiff's legal right as contemplated under the Trade Mark and Copyright act.