Tuesday, 28, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Ranbaxy Laboratoreis Limited vs M/S. Mesjura Sergei ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 2073 Del

Citation : 2015 Latest Caselaw 2073 Del
Judgement Date : 10 March, 2015

Delhi High Court
Ranbaxy Laboratoreis Limited vs M/S. Mesjura Sergei ... on 10 March, 2015
$~9
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                                   Date of Decision: 10.03.2015

                                + CS(OS) 1333/2011


RANBAXY LABORATOREIS LIMITED                       ..... Plaintiff
                Through:  Mr. Shashi P. Ojha, Adv.

                             Versus

M/S. MESJURA SERGEI VLADIMIRIVYCH & ANR.
                                                                       ..... Defendants
                             Through:       None.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Oral)

This is a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction

restraining infringement of trade mark, copyright, domain name,

passing off, rendition of accounts, damages, etc. against the

defendants for plaintiff's statutory and common law proprietary rights

over the trademark 'KETANOV' and the violation thereof by the

defendants by registering plaintiff's trademark 'KETANOV' as its

domain name www.ketanov.kiev.ua without any authorisation,

permission or license by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a company

incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It is one of the _________________________________________________________________________________

world's largest pharmaceutical companies. The trade name

'KETANOV' had been registered in the name of the plaintiff in

various countries across the world. It is averred that the said trade

name has been in use since 1992 in India; the mark 'KETANOV' was

a registered mark of the plaintiff under registration No.555727 in

Class 5 for pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations. Subsequently,

the said mark got removed from the Register of Trade Marks on the

basis of non-renewal as notified in Journal number 1435. In the

meanwhile, the plaintiff had again applied for the said registration of

the mark 'KETANOV', by an application dated 28.01.2011 vide

application No. 02090778 claiming user of the Mark 'KETANOV'

for pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations. The medicine

'KETANOV' is used in post-operative care as an analgesic, anti-

inflammatory and mild antipyretic actions. The said medicine of the

plaintiff is offered for sale in the form of tablets of 10 mg as well as

injections.

The defendants are stated to be using the domain name

www.ketanov.kiev.ua which, according to the plaintiff, dilutes their

goodwill in the trademark and seeks to unjustly benefit the defendants

_________________________________________________________________________________

to the detriment of the interests of the plaintiff. The plaintiff seek an

injunction restraining the defendants from using the said expression.

The defendants have been proceeded ex parte. Even today,

none appears to represent them.

The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that he does not

seek any damages or costs of the present proceedings.

This Court is of the view that no purpose would be served if the

matter is sent for recording of evidence in terms of this Court's order

in Satya Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. v. Satya Infra & Estate Pvt. Ltd.

CS(OS) 1213/2014 wherein the Court while considering whether the

plaintiff is to be directed to lead ex parte evidence, held:

"5. .................. no purpose will be served in such cases by directing the plaintiff to lead ex parte evidence in the form of affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and which invariably is a repetition of the contents of the plaint. The plaint otherwise, as per the amended CPC, besides being verified, is also supported by affidavits of the plaintiff."

What the Court is to ascertain is whether the plaintiff is entitled

to a decree of mandatory injunction forthwith. There is violation of

_________________________________________________________________________________

the plaintiff registered trademark KETANOV by the defendants. The

case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint stands unrebutted. The

plaintiff is entitled to protection of their trademark and for grant of

decree as prayed for. In the circumstances, the suit is decreed in

terms of paragraph No. 28(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of the plaint. A

Decree Sheet be drawn up accordingly.

The suit is disposed off in the above terms.

MARCH 09, 2015/acm NAJMI WAZIRI, J.

_________________________________________________________________________________

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter