9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to show that both names too nearly resemble each other. This Court is unable to find anything perverse in the conclusion arrived at by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 had indeed made out a case under section 22(1)(b) of the Act for a direction to the petitioner to change its name by removing the word "Pharmaplan", within a period of three months. - W.P. (C) NO. 3217 OF 2010 AND C.M. APPEAL NOS. 6437 AND 7265 OF 2010 - - - Dated:- 16-7-2010 - DR. S. MURALIDHAR, J. Devashish Bharuka and Gaurav Ray for the Petitioner. Sachin Datta, Sudhir Chandra, Sagar Chandra and Ishani Chandra for the Respondent. JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 21-4-2010, passed by the Regional Director (NR), Min ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me cGMP Pharmaplan (P.) Ltd. 5. On 17-7-2009, respondent No. 2 filed a Civil Suit No. 1307 of 2009 in this Court seeking, inter alia, an injunction to restrain the petitioner herein (defendant No. 1 in the above suit) from passing off the name of respondent No. 2-company as its own. Simultaneously respondent No. 2 also filed a representation before the Regional Director on 27-7-2009, under section 22 of the Act seeking a direction that the petitioner should change its name. 6. While disposing of the application filed by respondent No. 2 under Order 34, rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 ("the CPC") in C. S. (OS) No. 1307 of 2009, a learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 18-12-2010, came to the conclusi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 22(1)( b ) of the Act. A direction was accordingly issued to the petitioner to delete the word "Pharmaplan" from its name and change its name to some other name within three months from the date of the order. 10. Pursuant to the notice issued in this petition on 12-5-2010, respondent No. 2 had filed a reply to which a rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner. 11. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Devashish Bharuka, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sudhir C. Chandra, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 2. 12. It is first submitted by Mr. Bharuka that given the scope of the jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution, this Court should set aside the impugned orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ous vexatious proceedings against him and his company. It is urged that two names are dissimilar as determined by the learned Single Judge in the application for injunction in the passing-off suit. 14. Reliance is placed by Mr. Bharuka on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Kalpana Polytec India Ltd. v. Union of India [2001] 106 Comp. Cas. 558 1 , to urge that respondent No. 1 exceeded its jurisdiction and adopted an approach unwarranted by section 22 of the Act. Finally without prejudice to the above submissions, it is submitted that in the event this Court is not inclined to accept the petitioner s contention then a further period of three months should be granted to the petitioner to comply with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... embles the name of respondent No. 2. In terms of paragraph 28 of the Guidelines, if the dissimilar portions of the names are removed, i.e., NNE and cGMP, then the remaining portion is the identical word "Pharmaplan". The word "Pharmaplan" being a coined word is indeed the prominent and distinctive part of the names of both the petitioner and respondent No. 2. When compared as a whole, it would be apparent that the two names structurally and phonetically too nearly resemble each other. 17. The decision in Montari Overseas Ltd. ( supra ), makes it clear that a civil court exercising its powers in terms of the CPC and determining in a passing-off action if one name is confusingly deceptive or similar to another name, is exercising a ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
