Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Candid Drug Distributors And 2 ORS.

917-NMS789-15.DOC SHEPHALI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO. 141 OF 2015 AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 789 OF 2015 Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

...Plaintiffs

Versus

Candid Drug Distributors & 2 Ors.

...Defendants Mr. V. R. Dhond, Senior Advocate, a/w Mr. Rashmin Kandekar, i/b M.

A. Mahadgut, for the Plaintiffs.

Dr. Birendra Saraf, a/w Nafisa Khandeparkar & Mrs. Monish Bhangale, i/b ALMT Legal, for the Defendants.

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED:

1st July 2016 PC:- 1.

The suit is disposed of by consent in the following terms. 2.

Dr. Saraf for the Defendants makes a statement on written instructions from a partner of the Defendants, Mr. Parthasarthy Banerjee, (a) that the Defendants will not use the trade mark CANDID in relation to any of their manufacturing 1st July 2016

917-NMS789-15.DOC activities, or on any products manufactured by them, or as the name of any product; and (b) that as regards application No. 2111451 under the Trade Marks Act or Trade Marks Rules, this will be limited to the Defendants' service activities as traders and retailers without in any manner detracting from the previous statement.

3.

Both statements are accepted as undertakings to the Court. 4.

Mr. Dhond for the Plaintiffs, on instructions, says that this is sufficient protection to the Plaintiffs. He does not, therefore, press the Plaintiffs' prayer for damages.

5.

The Suit is decreed in terms of the statement made by Dr. Saraf. There will be no order as to costs. Drawn up decree is dispensed with.

6.

In view of this, the Notice of Motion (L) No. 789 of 2015 does not survive and is disposed of as such.

7.

This decree shall not in any way limit the Plaintiffs' right to seek suitable reliefs against any other manufacturer of any infringing product, whether or not that infringing product is sold directly or through the present Defendant.

(G. S. PATEL, J.) 1st July 2016