The Delhi High Court has directed a company not to use its trademark, which is deceptively similar to the Revital brand, for manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in medicinal preparations/health supplements.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, the makers of Revital, had filed an application in the High Court under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code seeking an injunction to restrain Wings Biotech, the makers of Onevital, and its director, distributors, etc. from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising directly or indirectly dealing in medicinal preparations/health supplements under Onevital mark or any other trademark/label/carton packaging/trade dress which is similar or deceptively similar to Sun Pharma’s Revital, amounting to infringement of the trademark and copyright.
Justice Jayant Nath observed that Sun Pharmaceutical has been using the Revital trademark since 1988 and as such, has acquired immense goodwill and reputation. Sun Pharmaceutical registered the Revital trademark back in 1985.
The court further observed that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case as they were able to show the similarities between the trademark and packaging of the supplement of both brands. It then restrained the Wings Biotech by an ex-parte injunction while issuing notice to the respondents.
Read Also: Madhya Pradesh HC dismisses petitions questioning validity of award passed by labour court
“The defendants (Wings Biotech), their directors, distributors, etc. are hereby restrained by an ex-parte injunction from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in medicinal preparations/health supplements under the impugned mark/label/carton packaging/trade dress Onevital or any other trade mark/label/carton packaging/trade dress which is deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trade mark/label/carton packaging/trade dress Revital or any other act amounting to infringement of the trade mark, copyright and passing off of the stated mark,” said the Court in its order.