Introduction:
The Delhi High Court, through a single bench led by Justice Jasmeet Singh, has ruled that courts can delve into the merits of trademark infringement cases during execution petitions without necessitating a new lawsuit. This ruling came in the context of a dispute involving Glaxo Group Limited, a biopharma company, against defendants who were found to be infringing on Glaxo's trademarks.
Background of the Case:
Glaxo Group Limited initiated a lawsuit seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants who were using deceptively similar trademarks for their products. Glaxo's registered trademarks included 'Zentel,' 'Otrivin,' and 'Ambirix,' while the defendants used names such as 'Sontel,' 'Etoriwin,' and 'Aribrix,' which were alleged to misappropriate Glaxo’s proprietary suffix 'Rix.' The court ruled in favor of Glaxo, leading to a settlement decree that required the defendants to destroy any products bearing the infringing marks. Despite this, the defendants continued their infringement, prompting Glaxo to file an execution petition.
Defendants' Contentions:
The defendants argued that any examination of their products' infringement on Glaxo’s trademarks should be addressed through a new lawsuit, rather than during the execution petition. They relied on the precedent set by Snapdeal (P) Ltd. v. Godaddycom LLC, where it was held that broad injunctions without identifying specific infringing instances were not permissible. The defendants claimed that each alleged infringement should be individually examined and not covered under a blanket order.
High Court’s Observations:
The High Court refuted the defendants' arguments, noting that the case cited by the defendants involved an interim order and not an execution petition. The current petition was based on a settlement mutually agreed upon by both parties, which was then formalized into a court decree. The court referred to previous cases like Essco Sanitations v. Mascot Industries (India), which supported the enforcement of such decrees in execution petitions. The court emphasized that an executing court must enforce a clear and complete decree without interpreting its terms, even if the decree appears erroneous.
Court’s Decision:
Based on these precedents, the High Court concluded that it could indeed examine whether the defendants' products were infringing Glaxo’s trademarks during the execution petition. The court found that the defendants' product 'Betnevin' and its packaging were similar to Glaxo's 'Betnesol,' thus infringing the trademark. Consequently, the court restrained the defendants from using the infringing mark and allowed Glaxo to revive the petition if further infringements occurred.
Conclusion:
The ruling reinforces that courts have the authority to enforce trademark protection through execution petitions, ensuring that decrees based on settlements are upheld. This decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to protecting intellectual property rights without necessitating new lawsuits for every infringement, thus streamlining the enforcement process.
Case Details:
- Title: Glaxo Group Limited and Others vs. Rajiv Mukul and Anr.
- Case No.: Execution Petition No. 9/2022
- Advocates for Glaxo: Ms. Shwetasree Majumdar, Ms. Tanya Varma, Ms. Shilpi Sinha, Mr. Vardaan Anand
- Advocates for Defendants: Mr. Sidharth Bambha, Ms. Sucharu Garg
This detailed summary encapsulates the core elements of the case and the Delhi High Court's significant ruling, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and their implications for trademark enforcement.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.