Madras HC Has Restrained Pathanjali Ayurved From Using Trademark “CORONIL”
The Madras High Court has restrained the Pathanjali Ayurved from using the Plaintiff’s registered Trademark “Coronil” till July 30, 2020. (M/s.Arudra Engineering Private Limited v. M/s.Pathanjali Ayurved Limited)
Facts:
The Plaintiff is a Private Limited Company named Arudra Engineering Pvt. Ltd., is engaged in the business of chemical cleaning and manufacturing of Material Handling Systems and Polymeric Epoxies for various factories in India and abroad. The plaintiff has registered the trademark ‘CORONIL-92 B’ as a product of Acid inhibitor for industrial cleaning, chemical preparations for industrial use on 14.06.1993. Also, the Plaintiff has customer companies which are situated across the length and breadth of this country and also in Srilanka, Oman, Philipines, Vietnam, Uganda, Malaysia, Singapore and Kuwait.
The Defendant is the Ayurveda company named Pathanjali Ltd., which had claimed a medicine to cure coronavirus, however, on June 23, when the medicine was launched, the Ministry of AYUSH asked the Company to stop making any claims related to Corona treatment, as they had not been verified by the government.
Before the Court, the senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff pointed out that the plaintiff has established substantial reputation in marketing their product Coronil and therefore, they have an inherent and statutory right for its protection of their registered trademark, owing to the extensive clientele they have across the country and also outside the country and also the substantial sales effected using the trade mark Coronil.
Further, the Senior Counsel placed reliance on Section 29(4) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 and urged that protection has to be granted whenever a registered trademark is infringed by a person who is not a registered proprietor and uses in the course of his trade a mark identical to the trade mark already registered, irrespective of the fact, whether the business is similar or not. Particular reference is drawn to Section 29(4)(b) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, wherein, it is provided that a registered trademark is infringed by a person who, not being a registered proprietor, uses the registered name even in relation to goods or services which are not similar to those for which the trade mark has been registered.
Furthermore, the Senior Counsel submitted before the Court that the details of the clinical trials are not available and as per reports available, the defendant’s product has been banned in the State of Maharastra and it is also stated that even in Uttrakand, the State Government had sought details about the effectiveness of the medicine propagated by the defendant. It is also pointed out by the learned senior counsel that several complaints have also been initiated as against the defendant.
Madras High Court Order:
The Court said that:
“It is seen that the plaintiff has a registered trademark Coronil and the registration is still subsists. Once the plaintiff has a registered trademark, protection has to be given from infringement. The law is clear on that aspect. The defendant has also claimed that he is going to market his product in the same name ‘Coronil’. The defendant can also market their product, but they have to use a different name. They cannot infringe upon the right accrued to the plaintiff owing to the registration of the trademark Coronil as early as 1993, which registration still subsists.”
Further, the Court directed that:
“In view of these facts, interim injunction is granted restraining the defendant, their promoters, assigns, successors-in-interest, licensees, franchisees, partners, directors, representatives, servants, distributors, employees, agents etc., or anyone associated with them from infringing the applicant’s registered trademarks bearing the name “Coronil” and from using the objectionable trademarks and/or deceptive variation of the applicant’s aforementioned trademarks singularly or in conjunction with any word/s or monogram/s/logo/s upon and in relation to their products/business in any manner whatsoever till 30.07.2020.”
Plaintiff: Arudra Engineering Private Limited
Defendant: Pathanjali Ayurved Limited
Join us:
