9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 539X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of England having its registered office at London which was formed as a result of the merger of two world renowned pharmaceutical groups, namely, Astra AB incorporated in Sweden and its subsidiary Zeneca Ltd. incorporated in the United Kingdom. It was asserted that pursuant to merger of Astra AB and Zeneca, plaintiff No. 1 became the assignee of registered trade mark 'MERONEM' bearing registration No. 532328 in class 5 in India from Zeneca Limited. Zeneca Ltd. had obtained the registration in its name on 27th June, 1990 which is valid and subsisting till 26th June, 2014 and this was assigned by Zeneca Limited in favor of plaintiff No. 1 by deed of assignment dated 4th January, 2000. It was further stated that another deed of assignment dated 9th August, 2000 was executed by Zeneca Limited to facilitate formal registration of the assignment of several of Zeneca's trade marks including 'MERONEM' and this assignment deed dated 9th August, 2000 along with form TM 24 was lodged with the Registrar of trade mark by letter dated 28th March, 2001 and the application is pending with the trade mark Registry, Bombay. The plaintiff No. 1 thus claimed all the rights in resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wide. 6. It was asserted that plaintiffs learnt about the launch of the defendant's drug `MEROMER' sometime in early 2005. Medicinal preparation of the defendant was stated to be identical to that of plaintiffs and is sold in India in vials of 500 miligrams and 1 gram. Plaintiffs were emphatic that the composition, dosage and antibacterial spectrum of the plaintiffs product and the defendant's products, sold under their respective mark are also more or less the same/identical. It was categorically pleaded that the stark difference between the drug sold by plaintiffs under the registered trademark 'MERONEM' and the drug sold by the defendant, under the mark 'MEROMER' is that while the plaintiffs drug has been approved for a shelf life of four years, the defendant's drug has been approved for a shelf life of only two years. On the basis of the difference of the shelf life it was contended that there is considerable higher possibility and likelihood of deception and confusion between the drugs sold under the plaintiffs registered trademark 'MERONEM' vis- a-vis the drug sold by the defendant under the mark 'MEROMER'. 7. The plaintiffs a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... due examination and in accordance with law is stated to have been allowed and a registration certificate dated 1.12.2005 was issued, a copy of which was filed by the defendant during the pendency of the case and consequent to the registration of the trademark of the defendant it has been asserted that the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief on the basis of infringement of their registered trademark as the mark of the defendant is also registered and the trademark of the defendant shall relate back to the date of application which is prior to the date of institution of the suit. The defendant also contended that since plaintiffs and defendant are both having registered trademarks, the plaintiffs cannot exercise their rights on the basis of registered trademark against the defendant who also owns a registered trademark. It was further pleaded that the registration with respect to the trademark 'MEROMER' was completed on 30.8.2005 even prior to the institution of the suit. The mark of the defendant was stated to have been advertised in trademark journal No. 1328 Supplement 4 dated 28.2.2005 at page 329 and the time prescribed for filing opposition to the grant of regist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow that the mark 'MERONEM' is registered under number 532328 in Class 5 in favor of Zeneca Ltd which is not a party to the proceedings and the search conducted on 30.11.2005 shows that the mark is still registered in the name of Zeneca Ltd and, therefore, the plaintiffs are not the proprietors of the trademark 'MERONEM' and since neither of the plaintiffs are the registered proprietors of the trademark they are not entitled to institute the suit for infringement of the registered trademark. The defendant also highlighted the discrepancies in the statements made on behalf of plaintiffs in their pleadings. It was stated that the plaint is based on the merger of Astra AB incorporated in Sweden with its merger with Zeneca Ltd whereas in another affidavit the plea raised by the plaintiffs is that Astra AB of Sweden merged with Zeneca plc. Zeneca Ltd is not the Zeneca plc and in the pleadings in the plaint no mention of Zeneca plc was made. The assignment deed dated 4.1.2000 produced by the plaintiffs was also contended to be fabricated as assignment deed dated 4.1.2000 shows Zeneca Ltd. as an existing company which could not be after merger of Zeneca Ltd. with Astra AB. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the manufacturing unit and the drugs of about 1.5 crores are in the stock to be marketed. The defendant also contended that interim injunction will cause irreparable loss and hardship as defendant is the largest pharmaceutical company in India which commenced business in 1992. The action of the plaintiffs have also been challenged on the ground that the plaintiffs have not taken any action against other persons and companies using the prefix MERO in their trade name and marketing the same drug. 17. I have heard the learned Counsels for the parties, Dr. Singhvi for the plaintiffs and Mr. Sundaram for the defendant, in great details for a number of days. The suit is at a stage when the existence of the rights of the plaintiffs and their violations are contested and uncertain. The rights of the plaintiffs are still to be established after the trial on evidence. Considering the magnitude of the sale of drug of both the parties the Court will have to go by the principle of `balance of inconvenience' which will be who will be more inconvenienced in case the injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff is granted or not granted and who will suffer irreparable loss. The principle enuncia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e equivalent to anhydrous meropenem USP 1 gm/500 mg. -Buffering agent: Sodium Carbonate (100 mg formulation contains 82 mg of sodium) 500 mg formulation contains 41 mg of sodium) Shelf life of the product (2 years). 2. COLOUR COMBINATION: COLOUR COMBINATION: The Plaintiffs vials are sold in also sold in quantity of 500 mg and 1000mg/1gm quantity). The Plaintiffs use a colour combination scheme (of reds and blues) in vial labels and the vial caps.- For their 500 mg vial, the Plaintiffs use a blue and red colour combination scheme, in which blue predominates. -For their 1 gm vial, the Plaintiffs use a red and blue colour combination scheme, in which red predominates. The Defendant vials are the quantity of 500 mg and 1000 mg/1 gm quantity. The defendant also uses colour combination scheme of red and blue in vial labels and vial caps. -For their 1000 mg vial it is blue-red combination-compare-For their 500 mg vial it is red blue combination 3. LABEL BACKGROUND: LABEL BACKGROUND: White White 4. LABEL CONTENTS PLACEMENT: LABEL CONTENTS PLACEMENT: The label of each vial containing the containing the Plaintiffs' product states above the trade mark 'meropenem for in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter or a certificate of registration for the purpose of correcting a clerical error or an obvious mistake. 20. Plaintiffs filed their suit on 4th October,2005 on the basis of registration of trademark in favor of plaintiff No. 1 and prior user of plaintiffs, claiming both infringement and passing off by the defendant. According to plaintiffs at the time of filing of the suit, the trade mark of the defendant was not registered and therefore, the plaintiffs shall also be entitled to maintain an action for the infringement of their registered trademark. 21. If according to the provisions of the Trade Marks act, 1999 the registration of the trademark will relate back to the date of the application which is 2nd August, 2004 in the present case, the plea of the plaintiffs that they shall still entitled to maintain the action of infringement of their registered trademark will not sustainable because the trade mark `Meromer' of the defendant will be deemed to be registered from 2nd August, 2004 according to Section 23(1)(b) of the act. Plaintiff also cannot sustain his action for infringement of his registered trademark on the ground that the cause of action had arisen in June-July, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stered trademark. The plaintiffs will not have a legal rights emanating from infringement of registered trade mark, as one registered trademark is not infringed by another registered trademark. The two marks `Meronem' and `Meromer' having `Mero' as common word will not infringe each other on account of their registration in the present facts and circumstances. The Act specifically enumerates the circumstances when a registered trade mark is not infringed. Section 30 of the Act is as under: 30. Limits on effect of registered trade mark.--(1) Nothing in Section 29 shall be construed as preventing the use of a registered trade mark by any person for the purposes of identifying goods or services as those of the proprietor provided the use-- (a) is in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters, and (b) is not such as to take unfair advantage of or be detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the trade mark. (2) A registered trade mark is not infringed where-- (a) the use in relation to goods or services indicates the kind, quality, quantity, intended purposes, value, geographical origin, the time of production of goods or of rend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by a person claiming under or through him is not infringement of a trade by reason only of (a) the registered trade mark having been assigned by the registered proprietor to some other person, after the acquisition of those goods; or (b) the goods having been put on the market under the registered trade mark by the proprietor or with his consent. (4) Sub-section (3) shall not apply where there exists legitimate reasons for the proprietor to oppose further dealings in the goods in particular, where the condition of the goods, has been changed or impaired after they have been put on the market. 24. Section 28(3) and 30(1)(d) deal with the rights of the registered proprietors of similar trade marks and bar action of infringement against each other as their reading show that the proprietor of registered trade mark can not file an infringement action against a proprietor of an identical or similar trade mark. However, Section 27(2) deals with passing off action and the rights for passing off are not affected by Section 28(2) and Section 30(1)(d). This position can not be disputed in view of N.R. Dongre and ors. v. Whirlpool Corporation and Ors. holding: A reading of Section 28(3) w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... `Meromer' of the defendant was filed after the institution of the present suit. Whether this application could be filed without prima facie satisfaction of the Court about tenability of the plea of the invalidity of the defendant's mark with the Appellate Board or pending adjudication of his plea of invalidity of the defendant's mark, the plaintiffs can enforce their rights for infringement of their trade mark' 27. Since the application for rectification of defendant's mark filed by the plaintiffs is pending, mere pendency of their application will not give any right to the plaintiffs to sustain their action for infringement of their registered trade mark. Mere filing of the application for invalidity of the trade mark of the defendant does not ipso facto results into stay of the registration or putting of any fetters on the rights of the registered owner of the trade mark flowing from the registration of the mark. If the rights of a registered owner of the trade mark are not clouded on account of pendency of the application of rectification, a fortiori the applicant for rectification also can not maintain action for the infringement of his registered trade mar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the registration of the trade mark. (5) The stay of a suit for the infringement of a trade mark under this section shall not preclude the court from making any interlocutory order (including any order granting an injunction directing account to be kept, appointing a receiver or attaching any property), during the period of the stay of the suit. 29. The said provision envisages two eventualities in case the defendant has raised a defense under Section 30 of the Act and the plaintiff has pleaded invalidity of the registration of the defendant's trade mark, one where the application seeking rectification is already pending and the other where the application is to be filed seeking rectification. In the present case the application for rectification is filed after the institution of the suit which fact has not been denied. 30. Under Section 124(b) if the application for rectification is already pending the suit can be stayed pending final disposal of such proceedings. In case the application for rectification or any such proceeding is not pending, then a party seeking rectification can apply for rectification subject to prima facie satisfaction of the Court regarding invalidity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been provided that on such plea being raised, the plea can be decided only in an appropriate rectification proceedings. In conformity with that provision, Section 111 envisages that if proceeding for rectification of the register in relation to plaintiff or defendant's trademark, as the case may be, are pending before the registrar or the High Court, further proceedings in the suit shall be stayed, until final disposal of rectification proceedings. If proceeding are not pending, and the plea regarding invalidity of registration of concerned mark is raised, the Court trying the suit is to be prima facie satisfied about tenability of the issue, and if it is so satisfied, it shall frame an issue to that effect and adjourn the case for three months, from the date of framing of the issue, in order to enable the party concerned to apply to the High Court for rectification of register. The consequences of the raising of issue are two fold. In case, the party concerned, makes an application for rectification within the time allowed, under sub Clause (ii) of sub Clause (b) of sub section (1), whether originally specified or extended later on, the civil Court trying the suit has to sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the plaintiffs therefore, is that their application for rectification filed before the Appellate Board is maintainable without prima facie satisfaction of the tenability of their plea by the Court. If the application for rectification of the defendant's trade mark is maintainable without prima facie satisfaction of this Court, then this suit is also liable to be stayed as claimed by the plaintiffs under Section 124(b) of the Act, though under Section of 124(5) of the Act, the application for injunction and for vacation or modification of an ex parte order can be considered and decided by this Court. The distinction between Section 124(b)(i) and 124(b)(ii) is on the basis of pendency of the proceedings for rectification of the register and not on the basis of whether the party initiating the proceedings for rectification could initiate such proceedings before the institution of the suit or not. There can be other eventualities under which a party may not be able to initiate the proceedings for rectification before the institution of the suit, but that will not give them a right to circumvent the prima facie satisfaction of his plea for invalidity, by the Court. The distinguish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter the above stated plea in the plaint, in the replies to the applications filed by the defendant and the written statement, it was pleaded by the plaintiffs that the trade mark belonges to Zeneca Ltd. which was wholly owned subsidiary of Zeneca Group PLC. Astra, AB Sweden merged with Zeneca from 6th April,1999 and its name became Astra Zeneca PLC and continued its existence as the same company. Zeneca Ltd. also continued its existence after the merger of Astra Sweden with Zeneca and remained a wholly owned subsidiary of Astra Zeneca Plc. Plaintiff No. 1 stated to be incorporated under the laws of England is wholly owned subsidiary of Astra Zeneca Plc and claims rights in the trade mark `Meronem' by deeds of assignment dated 4th January, 2000 and 9th August,2000 whereby Zeneca Ltd.. assigned its rights in the trade mark in favor of the plaintiff No. 1. Though there are variations in the contentions of the plaintiffs in the plaint and subsequently in the replies filed to the applications of the defendant, however, considering the entirety of the plea, it can not be inferred that even prima facie the plaintiffs have not been able to show assignment of trade mark `Meronem' in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and circumstances. Reliance can be placed on Grandlay Electricals (India ) Ltd. and Ors. v. Vidya Batra and Ors. 1998 PTC (18) 646 (Del) and Modi Threads Limited v. Sam Soot Gola Factory and Anr. . The learned judge in M/s Mode Threads (supra) while dealing with the said proposition opined in the following words: It is true that the plaintiff's application for getting transferred the registered trademark in its name in the office of the registrar is a still pending but that does not debar the plaintiff to protect the violation of the aforesaid trademark at the hands of unscrupulous persons by filing an action in court of law for injunction. It is, prima facie, clear to me that during the interregnum period when the application of the plaintiff is Pending for consideration by the registrar of trademarks, the dishonest persons cannot be allowed to make use of the said trademark in order to get themselves illegally enriched earning upon the reputation built up qua that trademark by the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff. Thus the plaintiffs cannot be denied the rights in the trademark which they have got on the basis of assignment deeds in their favor on the ground that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r trade name pending with the trademark registry do not confer any rights capable of protection prior to the registration of the mark and mere presence of marks on the trademark register does not prove user thereof. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that even a generic/descriptive mark can by long user become associated as the trademark of the product with a particular manufacturer and the use of a deceptively similar trademark would cause irreparable loss and injury to the manufacturer concern. Plaintiffs claimed that even if ' Mero ' is held to be a generic word, the injunction cannot be denied to the plaintiff against the defendant as he is using a deceptively similar mark, which is both phonetically and visually similar, to the plaintiffs' mark. The added matter as contended by the defendant are not sufficient to distinguish the marks of plaintiffs and the defendant. As the products of the plaintiffs and the defendant are medicine, stricter approach was canvassed for medicinal preparation relying on Cadilla Health Care Ltd. v. Cadilla Pharmaceuticals Ltd. . It was held that where medicinal products are involved, the test applicable to judge violation of trademark is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manner deceptively similar to each other. The defendant sells the goods in mono cartons whereas plaintiffs sell their goods in beehive cartons of 10 vials. The goods of the plaintiffs are made available to the purchaser in the vials as such without any cartons for the individual vial. Shapes of vials were also stated to be different as plaintiffs' vial is narrow and the defendant's vial is broad and from the bottom tapers towards the neck. Colures used on different vials were also stated to be different as well as the style of writing. The goods of the plaintiffs and defendant are schedule `H' drug and are sold on prescription and therefore the confusion between the two trademarks is almost none. The defendant highlighted the difference in price of the products of the plaintiffs and the defendant. It had been contended that the plaintiffs are also liable to provide the medicine at price at which it is marketed by the defendant. Denying any trans-border reputation, it was contended that the plaintiffs have not made any averments regarding trans-border reputation. Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in Whirlpool (supra) it was stated that the trans-border reputat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant. Following factors are relevant for consideration while dealing with an action for passing off of similar trade marks for drugs and medicine: (1) The nature of the marks i.e. whether the marks are word marks of label marks or composite marks, i.e. both words and lable marks. (2) The degree or resembleness between the marks, phonetically similar and hence similar in idea. (3) The nature of the goods in respect of which they are used as trade marks. (4) The similarity in the nature, character and performance of the goods of the rival traders. (5) The class of purchasers who are likely to buy the goods bearing the marks they require, on their education and intelligence and a degree of care they are likely to exercise in purchasing and/or using the goods. (6) The mode of purchasing the goods or placing order for the goods and. (7) Any other surrounding circumstances which may be relevant in the extent of dissimilarity between the competing marks. 43. In the Cadilla Health Care Ltd. (supra) the Apex Court also held that when the question of passing of action is to be decided in a case involving medicinal products, the test to be applied to adjudge the violation of trade ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne prescribed and bought which is ultimately handed over to them. (v) While dealing with cases relating to passing off, one of the important tests which was to be applied in each case is whether the misrepresentation made by the defendant is of such a nature as is likely to cause an ordinary consumer to confuse one product or another due to similarity or marks and other surrounding factors. What is likely to cause confusion would vary from case to case. 44. While confusion in the case of non-medicinal products may only cause economic loss, confusion between the two medicinal products may have disastrous effects on health and life. Stringent measures should be adopted especially where medicines are the medicines of last resort as any confusion in such medicines may be fatal or could have disastrous effects. The confusion as to the identity of the product itself could have dire effects on the public health. Therefore, these principles are to be kept in mind while deciding these applications, according to the judgment of the Apex Court and in case of confusion what will be the result. The emphasis is on whether on confusion the effect would be disastrous and its effect on the life. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the trade name. Once, therefore, it is held that the word 'micro' is a common or general name descriptive of the products which are sold or of the technology by which the products are manufactured, and the users of such products are, therefore, not likely to be misguided or confused by the said word, the only question which has to be prima facie decided at this stage is whether the words 'tel' and 'nix' in the trade names of the appellant and the respondent are deceptive for the buyers and users and are likely to misguide or confuse them in purchasing one for the other. According to us, phonetically the words being totally dissimilar are not going to create any such confusion in the mind of the users. After comparing added information of the two marks Micronix and Microtel, the Apex Court held that there was no chance of users being misguided or confused. The Supreme Court observed: ... This being the case, we are of the view that there is not even the remotest chance of the buyers and users being misguided or confused by the two trade names and logos. Same is the case with the carton which merely reproduces both the trade names and the logos. 46. The ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs 'P' and 'T' in 'Protovit' cannot possibly be slurred over in pronunciation and the words are so dissimilar that there is no reasonable probability of confusion between the words either from the visual or phonetic point of view. The Supreme Court had held: 8. In order to decide whether the word 'Dropovit' is deceptively similar to the word 'Protovit' each of the two words must, therefore, be taken as a whole word. Each of the two words consists of eight letters, the last three letters are common, and in the uncommon part the first two are consonants, the next is the same vowel 'O', the next is a consonant and the fifth is again a common vowel 'O'. The combined effect is to produce an alliteration. The affidavits of the appellant indicate that last three letters 'Vit' is a well known common abbreviation used in the pharmaceutical trade to denote vitamin preparations. In his affidavit, dated January 11, 1961 Frank Murdoch, has referred to the existence on the register of about 57 trade marks which have the common suffix 'Vit' indicating that the goods are vitamin preparations. It is apparent that the terminal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rade marks it has to be seen if the customers who purchase the goods would be guided by the use of such word or expression or would ignore it and give emphasis to prefixes or suffixes or words used in association therewith. The primary question to be asked is What would remain in the memory of customer' The surrounding circumstances such as the presentation of goods, colour scheme and lettering style etc. used on the packing also assume significance. 51. The name `Mero' is from the common name of the drug, Meropenem and the defendant and the plaintiffs both can not claim exclusive right to the same. The non descriptive words `Nem' and `Mer' of the two trade names are distinct. This distinction coupled with others, colour scheme and shape of the vial, which have been perused by me, demonstrate quite dis-similarities between the two products, which is the same medicine, marketed under the different trade names. The only difference is the shelf life which can be ascertained from the date of expiry and the price, as the drug marketed by the plaintiffs is costlier than the same drug marketed by the defendant. The principals laid down by the Apex Court in Cadilla do not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion `Liv' from liver, an organ of human body as constituent of names of medicinal preparations meant for treatment of ailments and diseases associated with liver where as in the case of plaintiffs there are only six companies, two of which are plaintiffs and defendant. Regarding 30 to 35 applications, contended by the defendant with the registrar of trademarks with the prefix `Mero' , plaintiffs stated that the presence of a mark on the register does not prove its user and consequently the plea of the defendant that `Mero' is commonly used in the trade is not sustainable. 55. This submission of the plaintiffs is based on their own assumption. At the interim stage 30 to 35 application with the registrar of trademarks with the prefix ' mero ' will rather demonstrate that the word `Mero' emanating from the common name of the medicine Meropenem, is commonly used. In any case even the plaintiffs have admitted that four more persons/companies are also marketing the drug `Meropenem' with the trademarks having prefix `Maro'. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how many more persons or companies should be using a particular name so as to infer its c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the defendant's proposed trade mark had not been published and therefore at the threshold and a preliminary stage of a suit, the holder of registered trade mark was accorded jural protection. In , Sanat Products Ltd. v. Glade Drugs and Nutraceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and anr the drugs `REFORM' and `REFIRM' were found to be deceptively similar but these names did not have any common prefixes based on some ailment, organ of the body or on the name of common medicine in contradistinction to the present case. The case of the SPOXIN and SUPAXI, 2002 (25) PTC 592 (Bom) (DB) is also clearly distinguishable on the same principle and does not support the contentions of the plaintiffs. These two trade marks were deceptively similar but the drugs were quite different and in case of confusion could lead to disastrous results in contradistinction to the plaintiffs' and defendant products which are the same drug marketed under the different names. The drug marketed by the parties to the suit is same except the content of buffering agent used by them which makes the shelf life different, shelf life is four years of plaintiffs' drug and two years of defendant drug. 57. Essential des ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the parties, it is difficult to infer at this stage that the adoption of the trademark` Meromer' by the defendant is with the intention to pass off his product as that of plaintiffs. The defendant has spent considerable amount in setting up the plant. The plaintiff was not the first to adopt and use the prefix ' MERO ' as trademark MEROCEL was registered in favor of M/s Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. No. 2110 East Galiraith Raod, Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S.A which fact can not be denied by the plaintiffs. There are other companies marketing the same drug, Meropenem, with the trade names having prefix `Mero'. Perusal of the plaint also reveals that the plaintiffs did not make any averment regarding trans border reputation. No material as has been relied on or produced by the plaintiffs to show its trans border reputation which were noticed by the Apex Court in N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation . 59. Defendant is one of the companies in India which is marketing the drug `Meropenem' which is essentially the same as that marketed by plaintiff but at a cheaper price. The defendant had launched his drug in November, 2004 after investing considerable amount in setting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
