Delhi High Court
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries ... vs Anglo-French Drugs And ... on 2 December, 2013
Author: Mukta Gupta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ IAs 16701/2011 (O.39 R.1 & 2 CPC) & 485/2012 (O.39 R.4 CPC)
in CS(OS) 2596/2011
% Reserved on: 11th September, 2013
Decided on: 2nd December, 2013
SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED
..... Plaintiff
Through Mr. Sachin Gupta, Mr. Shashi Ojha,
Advs.
versus
ANGLO-FRENCH DRUGS AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED & ANR
..... Defendant
Through Ms. Rajeshwari H, Mr. Hariharan, Ms.
Urvashi Singh, Advs.
Coram:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
1. By IA 16701/2011 under Order XXXIX Rule 1&2 CPC the plaintiff
had sought ex-parte ad interim injunction against the defendant which was
granted and thus it seeks the confirmation thereof till the disposal of the suit
whereas by I.A No. 485/2012 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC the
defendant seeks vacation of the interim order dated 18 th October, 2011
passed by this Court.
2. A brief exposition of the facts is that the plaintiff is a pharmaceutical
company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 which markets drugs
and formulations in India and over 30 countries in the world under vide
range of distinctive trademarks/ brand names for the last several years. The
I.A Nos. 16701/2011 & 485/2012 in CS(OS) No. 2596/2011 Page 1 of 16
plaintiff had an annual turnover of Rs. 4000 crores for the year 2007-08 in
the manufacturing of specialty pharmaceuticals and active pharmaceutical
ingredients. One of the medicinal preparations marketed by the plaintiff is
Oxcarbazepine, an anticonvulsant and mood stabilizing drugs used in the
treatment of epilepsy and bipolar disorder under the trade mark OXETOL.
The plaintiff has been preparing and marketing this drug extensively and
commercially since October 2001. The plaintiff‟s trademark OXETOL was
registered in India in Class 5 under registration No. 1013231 on 31 st May,
2011 and No. 1232899 on 5th September, 2003. The annual sales figure of
the medicine under the trademark OXETOL is Rs. 31.28 crores and
approximately Rs. 4.98 crores was spent on promotion and advertisement of
this drug during the year 2010-11. The defendant No.1 adopted the
trademark EXITOL which the plaintiff came to know when the defendant
No. 1‟s trademark application No. 1910625 dated 19 th January, 2010, on
proposed to be used basis, was published in the Trade Mark Journal No.
1455 dated 25th October, 2010. The plaintiff sent legal notice to the
defendant No.1 calling it to withdraw the impugned trademark application,
however the defendant No.1 did not give any reply, the plaintiff filed its
notice of opposition before the Registrar of Trade Marks. It is further stated
that the medicine under the impugned trademark EXITOL is not available in
any of the medicinal trade journals and/or markets. The defendant No.1
through its counsel sent an e-mail dated 12th May, 2011 to the plaintiff
offering to give an undertaking that they would confine to use of the mark
EXITOL to granules and syrups containing Lactitol Monohydrate for
treatment of constipation only and not extend the use of the mark to any
other pharmaceutical product. The plaintiff wrote to the defendant‟s counsel
I.A Nos. 16701/2011 & 485/2012 in CS(OS) No. 2596/2011 Page 2 of 16
seeking monetary compensation proposing grant of regulating license for
compensation/ license fee which was declined by the defendant‟s counsel. It
is the case of the plaintiff that the impugned trademark EXITOL of the
defendant is almost identical to the plaintiff‟s trademark OXETOL and thus
the same amounts to infringement and the act of the defendant constitutes an
unfair competition as the defendants are using the trademark deceptively
similar to the trademark of the plaintiff and thus taking advantage of the
financial and human resources invested by the plaintiff since 2001 without
incorporating any cost themselves.
3. The case of defendant No.1 is that the defendant No.1 honestly
adopted the mark EXITOL for treatment of constipation since it contains the
salt namely Lactitol. The product is sold in syrup and granule form and
there is difference in the mark of the plaintiff and that of the defendant. The
1st defendant not only monitors the making of the products but also monitors
the finished products including the marketing of them. The 1 st defendant‟s
products enjoy great reputation and goodwill in the market.
4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that the plaintiff is a
registered proprietor of the trademark OXETOL and under Section 28 of the
Trade Marks Act, 1999 is entitled to the exclusive right to use the same for
medicinal preparations which include all forms of drugs. The mark of the
defendant EXITOL being deceptively similar, constitutes infringement under
Section 29(1) of the Trade Marks Act. The impugned trademark EXITOL is
deceptively similar on account of its "overall, structural and phonetic
similarity", when compared as a whole and when examined from point of
view of a man of "average intelligence" and "imperfect recollection" as held
I.A Nos. 16701/2011 & 485/2012 in CS(OS) No. 2596/2011 Page 3 of 16
in Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma Vs. Navaratna Pharmaceutical AIR
1965 SC 980; Amritdhara Pharmacy Vs. Satyadeo Gupta AIR 1963 SC 449;
Corn products Vs. Shangrilla AIR 1960 SC 142 and Cadila Health Care Ltd.
Vs. Cadila Pharma Ltd. AIR 2001 SC 1952. The contention of the defendant
No.1 is that no Neurologist would prescribe defendant‟s medicine for the
treatment of epilepsy is misconceived. The distinction that one medicine is
sold in tablet form and the other in the form of syrup or granule is irrelevant.
Secondly, the confusion about the source, i.e. one being the variant of the
other originating from the same source also amounts to infringement.
Relying upon Novartis AG Vs. Crest Pharma Pvt. Ltd. 2009 (41) PTC 51 it
is submitted that even if the competing drugs are prescribed for different
diseases and used in different forms, however still the same can amount to
passing off if the two trademarks are deceptively similar and injunction
should be granted in such circumstances. Referring Franco Indian Vs.
Unichem Laboratories 2005 (30) PTC 131 (Bom) it is contended that once
the Court comes to the conclusion that there are phonetic and visual
similarity between the two marks, the Court cannot decline to grant
injunction only because they are sold in different forms, their wrappers are
different and that they are prescribed for two different ailments. Hence the
interim injunction granted be confirmed.
5. Learned counsel for the defendants on the other hand contends that the
plaintiff‟s medicine under the trademark OXETOL is used as anti-
convulsant, mood stabilizing drug for epilepsy, bipolar disorders,
neurological disorders etc. OXETOL is derived from „Oxcarbazepine‟ the
generic name of the drug. It is sold as capsules or tablets in blister packs, a
I.A Nos. 16701/2011 & 485/2012 in CS(OS) No. 2596/2011 Page 4 of 16
schedule H drug sold only on prescription. Defendant‟s drug under the
trademark EXITOL is a hospital administered laxative. This is also a
Schedule H drug sold on prescription only. The plaintiff‟s have never sold
nor sells laxatives, has no presence in the laxatives business at all. The
defendant‟s have invented the mark and honestly adopted the same. The
word „EXI‟ is derived from „exit‟ for constipation and „TOL‟ is derived from
the generic name of the drug lactitol. EXITOL is thus an invented word and
not a dictionary word. It is a common practice in pharma field to coin the
name of the product from the name of generic drug or from target ailment or
organ. Thus, it cannot be said that the defendants have dishonestly adopted
the mark EXITOL. Reliance is placed on Kalindi Medicure Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Anr. 2007 (34) PTC 18 (Del). Further there
are major differences between the mark of the plaintiff and the defendants,
such as the name of the product, word structure, active ingredient, product
form, packaging, artwork/ graphics, visual impression, disease condition,
prescribing doctor, purchasing public, consuming public and the price.
Since the plaintiff was conscious of the fact that there was no confusion, it
agreed to offer the defendant to restrict its use for mark EXITOL only for
laxatives, however the proposal fizzled out due to the demand of
compensation. The two trademarks are not identical and no presumption of
confusion attaches for an action of passing off. Reliance is placed on Ruston
Hornsby Ltd. Vs. Jamindra Engineering Co. AIR 1970 SC 1649. While
granting injunction distinction between infringement and passing off has to
be kept in mind. [ See Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma Vs. Navaratna
Pharmaceutical AIR 1965 SC 980]. Once the therapeutic indications are
different, there can be no confusion and consequently no injunction.
I.A Nos. 16701/2011 & 485/2012 in CS(OS) No. 2596/2011 Page 5 of 16
Reliance is placed on Sun Pharmaceuticals Vs. West Coast Pharmaceuticals
2002 GLR 1743 and Mount Mettur Pharmaceuticals Vs. Ortha Pharma AIR
1975 Mad 74. When the suffix is same, it is a feature common to the trade,
then prefix or the opening stem has to be considered. [ See Astrazeneca UK
Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 2007 (34) PTC
469 Delhi (DB); Apex Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Zuventus Health Care Ltd.,
2006 (33) PTC 492 Mad (DB)]. Since the defendant is not using the mark
for similar or identical goods, no injunction is liable to be granted. Further a
number of drugs with TOL or OXI/OXE co-exist in market for epliptic
disorders for which no action has been taken by the plaintiff and thus it
cannot impugne the defendants‟ trademark. Since both the drugs are
Schedule H drugs which are sold on Doctor‟s prescription, there can be no
confusion. Further OXETOL can be purchased only with a written
prescription of a Neurologist. Thus no mistake can be committed by a
chemist because the form of presentation is different, the opening syllable
are different and active ingredients are different. Further the plaintiff has
filed the suit belatedly as the mark of the defendant was adopted in January
2010 and the drug license was issued in February 2010, the mark was
published in October 2010 and marketed since June 2010. However, the
present suit has been filed in October, 2011. The balance of convenience
also does not lie in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, ad interim injunction be
vacated.
6. The differences between the mark of the plaintiff and of defendant are
as follows:
I.A Nos. 16701/2011 & 485/2012 in CS(OS) No. 2596/2011 Page 6 of 16
S.No. Factor Plaintiff's product Defendant's product
1 Name OXETOL (derived from EXITOL (derived from
oxcarbzapine) EXI- and -TOL)
2 Word structure OXE ----TOL EXI----TOL
3 Active ingredient Oxcarbazepine Lactitol
4 Product from Capsules, tablets in blister Syrup or granules
pack
5 Packaging Blister pack/ strip of Bottle or sachets
tablets
6 Artwork/ graphics Man with brain and Prominent diagram of
related graphics intestine and related
graphics
7 Scheme and Trade dress White background with an Yellow and white
orange script and use of colour scheme with
colour brown EXITOL written in blue
distinctive script.
8 Disease condition Anti-convulsant, for mood Hospital administered
stabilizing, for treating laxative
epilepsy, bipolar
disorders, neurological
disorders
9 Prescribing doctor Neurologist Physician at hospital
10 Purchasing public Patient/ accompanying Mostly Nurse at
guardian after being hospital as patient
prescribed the product; admitted;
Nurse at hospital (if By patient, if
patient admitted) recommended by doctor
11 Consuming public Neuro-patients Any patient admitted to
hospital with some
illness
12 Price Price of OXETOL 600 (10 Price of 250 ml syrup
tablets per strip) - Rs. bottle of Exitol - Rs.
138/- 210/-
I.A Nos. 16701/2011 & 485/2012 in CS(OS) No. 2596/2011 Page 7 of 16
13 Price Price of OXETOL 300 (10 Price Exitol Sachet of
tablets per strip)- Rs. 66/- 15g.- Rs. 29.50/-
7. The legal principles for deciding the question of deceptive similarity
have been culled out by the Supeme Court in Cadila Health Care Ltd.
(supra) stating that the following factors are required to be considered:
"35. Broadly stated in an action for passing off on the basis of
unregistered trademark generally for deciding the question of
deceptive similarity the following factors to be considered:
a) The nature of the marks i.e. whether the marks are words
marks or label marks or composite marks, i.e. both words and
label works.
b) The degree of resembleness between the marks,
phonetically similar and hence similar in idea,
c) The nature of the goods in respect of which they are used
as trademarks.
d) The similarity in the nature, character and performance of
the goods of the rival traders.
e) The class of purchasers who are likely to buy the goods
bearing the marks they require, on their education and
intelligence and a degree of care they are likely to exercise in
purchasing and/or using the goods.
f) The mode of purchasing the goods or placing orders for
the goods and
g) Any other surrounding circumstances which may be
relevant in the extent of dissimilarity between the competing
marks.
Weightage to be given to each of the aforesaid factors
depends upon facts of each case and the same weightage cannot
be given to each factor in every case."
I.A Nos. 16701/2011 & 485/2012 in CS(OS) No. 2596/2011 Page 8 of 16
8. In Cadila Health Care (supra) the Supreme Court laid down the rule
of caution that although both the drugs are sold under prescription but this
fact alone is not sufficient to prevent confusion which is otherwise likely to
occur. In view of the varying infrastructure for supervision of physicians
and pharmacist of medical profession in our country due to linguistic, urban,
semi-urban and rural divide across the country and with high degree of
possibility of even accidental negligence, strict measures to prevent any
confusion arising from similarity of mark among medicines are required to
be taken. The rule enunciated by Judge Helen in Cole Chemical Company
Co. Vs. Cole Laboratories D.C.Mo. 1954, 118F, Supp. 612, 616, 617, 101,
USPQ 44, 47, 48 was noted wherein it was laid down that prevention of
confusion and mistakes in medicines is too vital to be trifled with. In Cadila
Health Care (supra) it was further held:
"32. Public interest would support lesser degree of proof
showing confusing similarity in the case of trademark in respect
of medicinal product as against other non-medicinal products,
drugs are poisons, not sweets. Confusion between medicinal
products may, therefore, be life threatening, not merely
inconvenient. Noting the frailty of human nature and the
pressures placed by society on doctors, there should be as many
clear indicators as possible to distinguish two medicinal
products from each other. It is not uncommon that in hospitals,
drugs can be requested verbally and/or under critical/ pressure
situations. Many patients may be elderly, infirm or illiterate.
They may not be in a position to differentiate between the
medicine prescribed and bought which is ultimately handed
over to them. This view finds support from McCarthy on Trade
Marks. 3rd Edition para 23.12 of which reads as under:
"The tests of confusing similarity are modified when the
goods involved are medicinal products. Confusion of source or
product between medicinal products may produce physically
I.A Nos. 16701/2011 & 485/2012 in CS(OS) No. 2596/2011 Page 9 of 16
harmful results to purchasers and greater protection is required
than in the ordinary case. If the goods involved are medicinal
products each with different effects and designed for even
subtly different uses, confusion among the products, caused by
similar marks could have disastrous effects. For these reasons,
it is proper to require a lesser quantum of proof of confusing
similarity for drugs and medicinal preparations. The same
standard has been applied to medical products such as surgical
sutures and clavicle splints."
9. A Division Bench of this Court in Schering Corporation and others v.
Alkem Laboratories Ltd., 2010 (42) PTC 772 (Del) held -
103. As we have already noticed, the present is an action for
infringement under Section 29 of the Act and not an action for
passing off. In any event, on consideration of the various factors
set out by the Supreme Court, as aforesaid, to us it is clear that
keeping in view the nature of the marks-which are word marks;
the lack of resemblance between the marks-phonetic or
otherwise; the fact that the word fragment 'TEMO' is publici
juris for the generic term TEMOZOLOMIDE, which is the
active ingredient in the appellants drugs and the use of 'TEMO'
is, therefore, descriptive; the fact that the appellants cannot
appropriate to themselves the exclusive use of a generic term
which is publici juris and descriptive; the fact that the drugs in
question are Schedule-H drugs and that there are vast price
differences, we are of the view that the injunction earlier
granted in favour of the appellants in the two cases have rightly
been vacated by the learned Single Judge.
104. xx xx xx xx
105. xx xx xx xx
106. xx xx xx xx
107. xx xx xx xx
108. xx xx xx xx
I.A Nos. 16701/2011 & 485/2012 in CS(OS) No. 2596/2011 Page 10 of 16
109. The packaging in which the products of the appellants,
namely, 'TEMODAL' is marketed and the products of the
respondents' ALKEM and GETWELL are marketed, have been
placed on record. 'TEMODAL' is marketed in 20 mg tablets,
each bottle containing 5 tablets. On the other hand 'TEMOKEM'
is marketed in an aluminum strip of five tablets and the potency
of the tablets is 100 mg. There is absolutely no similarity in the
getup of the packaging adopted by the appellants and the
respondents. Similarly, 'TEMOGET' is sold in an aluminum
strip of five capsules of either 20 mg or 250 mg. The colour of
the capsules of the appellants is green for the 5 mg capsule,
brown for the 20 mg capsule, blue for the 100 mg capsule and
black for the 250 mg capsule. The product of the respondent
GETWELL is sold in capsules of 20 mg of blue colour, 100 mg
in while colour and 250 mg in green colour. Therefore, there is
no similarity in the getup of either the packaging or the product
itself.
110. In our view, the factors that the products of the respondent
contain the warning 'To be supplied against demand from
cancer hospitals, institutions and against a prescription of a
cancer patient only" and the huge price difference (about 600%)
in the product of the appellants on the one hand, and the
respondents on the other hand, are extremely germane
considerations to rule out the possibility of any confusion or
deception in the minds of the purchasers of the drugs in
question.
111. The drugs of the respondents can be bought only against
prescriptions from cancer hospitals, institutions and cancer
specialists and not otherwise. The appellants have not produced
any credible material to show actual confusion or that their
product is, in any way, superior to that of the respondents which
could be relied upon at this stage of the proceedings.
112. The aforesaid trademarks cannot be deciphered or
considered separately i.e. by fragmenting them, but must be
taken as a whole. But even if they are taken as a whole, the
prefix TEMO used with suffix KEM and GET in the two
competing names distinguish and differentiate the products of
the appellants from those of the two respondents. When they are
taken as a whole, the aforesaid two trademarks of the two
respondents cannot be said to be either phonetically or visually
or in any manner deceptively similar to the trademarks of the
appellants i.e. TEMODAL and TEMODAR.
113. The common feature in the competing marks i.e. TEMO is
only descriptive and publici juris and, therefore, the customers
would tend to ignore the common feature and would pay more
attention to the uncommon feature. Even if they are expressed
as a whole, the two do not have any phonetic similarity to make
them objectionable.
114. Consequently, we find no infirmity with the findings
arrived at by the learned Single Judge at this stage. The learned
Single Judge was justified in not continuing the temporary
injunction in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs. We, therefore,
dismiss these appeals but with no orders as to costs. However,
we direct the respondents Alkem and Getwell in the two appeals
to maintain detailed accounts of the sales of their respective
drugs 'TEMOKEM' and 'TEMOGET' and to regularly file half
yearly statements in the suit, till the disposal of the suit. It goes
without saying that any observation made by us on the merits of
the cases of either party is only tentative, and the learned Single
Judge shall decide all issues arising in the suit without being
influenced one way or another by our said findings."
10. In Astrazeneca UK Ltd. and another v. Orchid Chemicals and
Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2007 (34) PTC 469 (Del) it was held-
"21. In our considered opinion the facts of the said case are
almost similar and squarely applicable to the facts of the present
case. 'Meropenem' is the molecule which is used for treatment
of bacterial infections. In that view of the matter, the
abbreviation 'Mero' became a generic term, is publici
Jurisdiction and it is distinctive in nature. Consequently, the
appellants/plaintiffs cannot claim exclusive right to the use of
'Mero' as constituent of any trademark. The possibility of
deception or confusion is also reduced practically to nil in view
of the fact that the medicine is sold only on prescription by
dealers. The common feature in both the competing marks i.e.
'Mero' is only descriptive and publici Jurisdiction and,
Therefore, the customers would tend to ignore the common
feature and would pay more attention to the uncommon feature.
Even if they are expressed as a whole, the two did not have any
phonetic similarity to make it objectionable. There are at least
four other registered users of the prefix 'Mero' in India whereas
the names of 35 companies using 'Mero' trademarks, which
have been registered or applied for registration, have been
furnished in the pleadings. The respondent/defendant advertised
its trademark 'Meromer' after submitting its application for
registration and at that stage, there was no opposition even from
the appellants/plaintiffs. The trademark of the
respondent/defendant was registered there being no opposition
from any quarter, including the appellants/plaintiffs.
22. Consequently, the two names, namely, 'Meromer' and
'Meronem' are found to be prima facie dissimilar to each other.
They are Schedule-H drugs available only on doctor's
prescription. The factum that the same are available only on
doctor's prescription and not as an over the counter medicine is
also relevant and has been rightly taken note of by the learned
Single Judge. In our considered opinion, where the marks are
distinct and the features are found to be dis-similar, they are not
likely to create any confusion. It is also admitted by the parties
that there is a difference in the price of the two products. The
very fact that the two pharmaceutical products, one of the
appellants/plaintiffs and the other of the respondent/ defendant,
are being sold at different prices itself ensures that there is no
possibility of any deception/confusion, particularly in view of
the fact that customer who comes with the intention of
purchasing the product of the appellants/plaintiffs would never
settle for the product of the respondent/defendant which is
priced much lower. It is apparent that the trademarks on the two
products, one of the appellants/plaintiffs and the other of the
respondent/defendant, are totally dissimilar and different."
11. Thus, it is aptly laid down that despite the fact that the drugs are sold
on the basis of prescription, both the drugs being Schedule H drugs, whether
confusion can arise or not has to be tested on the basis of various factors laid
down in Cadila Health Care. In the present case, the two trademarks are
OXETOL and EXITOL. Undoubtedly, the word TOL is prefixed by word
EXI by the defendants. The active ingredients of the two products are
different; as the plaintiff‟s product has Oxcarbazepine and that of the
defendant lactitol. The product of the plaintiff is available in capsule and
tablets and that of the defendants is available in syrups or granules. Further,
the packaging of both the products shows different word and graphics. The
plaintiff‟s product shows that a man with brain has been created whereas in
the case of defendant‟s product diagram of intestine has been reproduced.
Thus, the visual impression of both the products is different. Further, the
two drugs are used for totally different purposes; as OXETOL is used as an
anti-convulsant for mood stabilizing whereas EXITOL is used as a laxative.
The plaintiff had in fact agreed and permitted the defendant to confine the
use of trademark EXITOL for the laxatives, however the settlement failed as
the plaintiff demanded compensation. This being the position it is thus the
admitted case of the plaintiff that it is not deceived/ harmed by the trademark
EXITOL used by the defendant as a laxative. The adoption of the trademark
EXITOL by the defendant cannot be said to be dishonest. It is common
knowledge that the medicinal preparations are named after the chemical
composition, or the disease they cure, or the organ with which they are
related. The strip of tablet of the plaintiff and the sachets/bottle of the
defendant show totally different pictures, graphics, etc. Further, the
defendant‟s product EXITOL can be administered only to patients admitted
in the hospital and thus it has to be prescribed by trained doctors and
administered by trained nurses.
12. Undoubtedly, while deciding the question of infringement this court
has to bear in mind that the claim for infringement of the plaintiff is based on
its statutory right unlike a case of passing off. While dealing with the
trademarks ACICAL and ACUCAL with regard to drugs in Sun
pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Vs. West Coast Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd.
& Anr. AIR 2012 Gujarat 142 the High Court noted that the user of the two
drugs was different, even the relevant material and ingredients were
different, the chemical composition was different and so were the mode of
taking it, one being a chewable tablet while the other a gulpable tablet.
Applying the principal laid down in Cadila Health Care it was held that
prima facie there was no such similarity in both the drugs ACUCAL and
ACICAL so that the same may cause confusion in the mind of the chemist or
the consumer. In Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
& Ors. 2011 (47) PTC 433 (Del.) it was held that if a drug is ordered by
hospital, there is no reasonable likelihood that NIFTAS would be passed off
as NIFTRAN since the nurses and doctors in the hospital are always in a
position to distinguish the drugs not only on account of difference in the
name but also on account of packaging, price of the drugs and the form in
which they are sold. In Kalindi Medicure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Intas
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Anr. 2007 (34) PTC 18 (Del) this Court noted that
physicians are also not immune from confusion and mistake, however one
product was sold as pill while the other product was sold as intra-muscular
injection with huge difference in price. That being the position, the balance
of convenience was in favour of the defendant and hence the interim
injunction was vacated in case wherein the two drugs were named as
LOPRIN and LOPARIN.
13. Considering the legal position and the facts noted, above the interim
injunction granted to the plaintiff vide order dated 18 th October, 2011 is
vacated. Consequently, I.A No. 16701/2011 is dismissed and I.A No.
485/2012 is allowed.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 02, 2013
'ga'
