Delhi High Court: Examination Of Trademark Infringement Allowed In Execution Petitions

Delhi High Court: Examination Of Trademark Infringement Allowed In Execution Petitions

Justice Jasmeet Singh of the Delhi High Court has permitted the execution petition against the defendants involved in infringing the trademarks of Glaxo Group Limited, a biopharmaceutical company specializing in vaccine production. The High Court ruled that the executing court has the authority to examine the merits of the infringement to assess compliance with the original decree that granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants.

Glaxo Group Limited ("Glaxo") initiated a lawsuit in the Delhi High Court ("High Court") seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants to cease using its registered trademarks. Glaxo holds trademarks for vaccines such as 'Zentel', 'Otrivin', and 'Ambirix', while the defendants were found using confusingly similar terms like 'Sontel', 'Etoriwin', and 'Aribrix'. Glaxo alleged that the defendants aimed to exploit the distinctive suffix 'Rix' for their own benefit.

The High Court ruled in favor of Glaxo, issuing a decree that mandated a settlement between Glaxo and the defendants. According to the decree, the defendants were ordered to dispose of any unfinished products or materials bearing the contested marks.

Despite the court's decree, the defendants persisted in infringing Glaxo's trademarks. They were specifically accused of employing the mark 'Betnevin', closely resembling Glaxo's trademark "Betnesol", and using similar packaging. In response to this ongoing infringement, Glaxo filed an execution petition with the High Court to enforce the original decree.

The defendants contended that if the Delhi High Court were to assess whether their products violate Glaxo's Trademark, it would exceed the decree's scope and involve a determination of infringement. They argued that such matters should be addressed through a new lawsuit initiated by Glaxo. They cited the case of Snapdeal (P) Ltd. v. Godaddycom, where the Delhi High Court emphasized that courts cannot issue broad injunctions without identifying specific instances of infringement. According to the ruling, each alleged infringement must be individually presented to the court for examination and appropriate legal remedies. This principle underscores that an infringement lawsuit must specifically address documented cases of infringement rather than seeking a general order against potential future violations.

The Delhi High Court rejected the defendants' argument, citing an interim order, emphasizing that their objection pertained to a different context and not an execution petition. The execution petition in question was based on a settlement agreed upon by both Glaxo and the defendants, endorsed by their respective counsels, and resulting in a decree that reflected the terms of the settlement.

In its decision, the High Court referred to the case of Essco Sanitations v. Mascot Industries (India), where it restrained judgment debtors from using a similar mark in compliance with an execution petition. The court highlighted that the decree, based on a compromise deed, prohibited the judgment debtors from infringing the trademark 'Essco' by adopting marks like 'Esso' or any other deceptively similar mark. The court also noted that the judgment debtors' adoption of the mark 'Osso' before the decree demonstrated dishonest intentions, reinforcing the need for restraint.

Additionally, the High Court relied on the precedent of Chittoori Subbanna v. Kudappa Subbanna, where the Supreme Court stressed that an executing court must enforce a decree without questioning its validity, even if the decree appears flawed or contrary to law. Building on these legal principles, the High Court determined that in an execution petition, it could assess whether the defendants' products and packaging infringed Glaxo's trademarks. It affirmed the duty of the executing court to uphold the decree as written.

As a result, the High Court concluded that the defendants' use of the mark 'Betnevin' and similar packaging to 'Betnesol' constituted infringement of Glaxo's trademarks. Accordingly, the defendants were restrained from further using the 'Betnevin' mark and similar packaging. The execution petition was resolved, with Glaxo retaining the right to revive it if further infringements occur.