The Delhi High Court, in its order, has stayed its earlier order of November in which a fine of Rs 200 was imposed. 10 lakh fine on Sun Pharmaceutical Industries for alleged suppression of facts in a trademark case.
As per the order, the stay has been extended till March 27, 2023, which is when the matter will be taken up for hearing by the High Court.
On November 22, the Delhi High Court in its order imposed a fine of Rs 200. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries was fined Rs 10 lakh for suppressing facts to obtain an ex-parte injunction in its trademark case with DWD Pharmaceuticals. This order was challenged by Sun Pharma seeking an immediate stay.
This stay was given by the bench headed by Justice Manmohan.
Last week, a bench headed by Justice Navin Chawla observed that “the plaintiff (Sun Pharma) cannot be allowed to escape the consequences of concealment of material facts from this Court to obtain an ex-parte order of injunction. With the disclosure of facts, whether the Court would still have granted an ad-interim ex-parte order of injunction or not is not relevant and cannot absolve the plaintiff from the consequences of non-disclosure of material facts”.
Adding that such practice should not only be deprecated but also punished. The order states that therefore a fine of Rs 10 lakh has been imposed on the plaintiff. The company will have to pay the fine within two weeks.
In May, an interim injunction was passed by the High Court restraining DWD from using the mark “Folzest” or any other mark similar to Sun Pharma’s mark “Folzest”.
Essentially, DWD’s Folzest is a multivitamin for pregnant women to reduce the risk of pre-term birth, while Sun’s Forzest is used to treat erectile dysfunction in men.
Sun, in his petition, prayed for grant of an interim injunction restraining DWD from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, dealing directly or indirectly with ‘Folzest’ or any other pharmaceutical preparation under the trade mark, which is confusingly similar. Plaintiff’s trade mark ‘Forzest’.
Sun also claimed that Mark Forzest has been registered since 2003. Whereas it also claimed that it came on the application of the respondent seeking registration of the objectionable mark ‘Folzest’ in May, following which it approached the court.
The DWD, on the other hand, said that it had approached the court stating that it is the registered owner of the trademark Zest since 1983 and has a family of registered marks along with a part of Zest. And some important information was withheld from this court.
Further, DWD alleged that Sun Pharma was well aware of the registration of the mark ‘ZEST’ not only in favor of DWD, but also about other marks registered and used by the Defendant, as the Plaintiff had earlier had applied for registration of the mark ‘EXEZEST’, which was opposed by the respondent in the year 2009 citing ‘ZEST’ family of marks. As per the judgment, the said opposition is still pending for adjudication before the Trade Marks Registry.
“It is the case of the defendant that the plaintiff has willfully not disclosed the aforesaid facts in its suit, and is, therefore, guilty of concealment of material facts”, it said.
catch all corporate news And updates on Live Mint. download mint news app to receive daily market update & Live business News,