Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd v. Healer's Lab & Anr.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Trade Marks Act, 1999 s. 134
Judgment
....Plaintiff V/s. Healer's Lab & Anr. ....Defendants Mr.B.N. Poojari I/b Asian Patent & Law for the Plaintiff. None for the Defendants. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 14TH MARCH, 2012. P.C. :-
This is an action for infringement and passing off. However, leave under clause XIV of the Letters Patent has not obtained as yet. The action for passing off therefore, cannot be considered in this suit. The plaintiff is at liberty to file the separate proceedings in respect thereof, if it so desire.
The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the word mark “LEEFLOX” under class-5.
The following issues are raised :- 1) Whether the Plaintiff proves territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court to entertain and try the present suit for infringement of the Plaintiff's trade mark and passing off goods as stated in paragraph 29 of plaint and denied in 2 s1266-06 paragraph 33 of written statement ? 2) Whether the Plaintiff proves proprietorship to trade mark LEEFLOX in respect of medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations as stated in paragraphs 9 and 13 of plaint & denied in paragraphs 26 and 29 of written statement ? 3) Whether use of the impugned mark LEFLOX-500 by the Defendants in respect of the medicinal and/or pharmaceutical preparations or similar goods constitutes infringement of the Plaintiffs' mark LEEFLOX registered under No.1205624 as stated in paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of plaint and denied in paragraph 30 of written statement ? 4) Whether the Defendants prove use of the mark LEFLOX-500 since 2003 as alleged in paragraph 29 of the written statement ? 5) 6) What relief ? What order?
The plaintiff has its registered office in Mumbai and carries on business in Mumbai. In view of section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.
Issue No.1 is therefore, answered in the affirmative in the plaintiff's favour.
The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the mark “LEEFLOX”. The defendants have used the mark “LEFLOX-500”. The deceptive similarity between the two marks, phonetic and visual, is patent. The deletion of a letter “E” in the defendants' mark and suffix “500” thereto makes no difference. The defendants' mark is still 3 s1266-06 deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark.
Issue Nos.2 and 3 are therefore answered in the affirmative in the plaintiff's favour.
The defendants have not led any evidence. The defendants have not established that they have used the impugned mark prior to the plaintiff's registration of the said mark. Issue No.4 is therefore answered in the negative against the defendants. The plaintiff has not pressed for accounts.
In the circumstances, the suit is decreed in terms of prayers (a) and (m). The Court Receiver did not find any goods. The Court Receiver shall therefore stand discharged without passing accounts but subject to payment of his costs, charges and expenses. Costs to be quantified as per rules. Refund, if any, as per rules.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Trade Marks Act, 1999 — s. 134.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 14 Mar 2012. The bench was S VAZIFDAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.