Patanjali Has To Use A Different Name; Madras HC Restrains Patanjali From Using Trademark ‘Coronil’
By : Legal Era
Update: 2020-07-22 14:08 GMT
trueasdfstory
The Madras High Court last Friday granted interim injunction against Patanjali Ayurved Limited from using the trademark ‘Coronil’ for their immunity booster drug which was initially being marketed as a cure for Covid-19.Justice CS Karthikeyan was hearing an application filed by Arudra Engineering Pvt Ltd, a Chennai based engineering company engaged in the business of chemical cleaning...
The Madras High Court last Friday granted interim injunction against Patanjali Ayurved Limited from using the trademark ‘Coronil’ for their immunity booster drug which was initially being marketed as a cure for Covid-19.
Justice CS Karthikeyan was hearing an application filed by Arudra Engineering Pvt Ltd, a Chennai based engineering company engaged in the business of chemical cleaning and manufacturing of Material Handling Systems and Polymeric Epoxies for various factories in India and abroad.
Moreover, the plaintiff has also registered the trademark 'Coronil-92 B' as an Acid inhibitor product for industrial cleaning, chemical preparations for industrial use, as early as June 14, 1993. The said certificate of registration is still valid and has been extended from time to time.
Plaintiff’s counsel Senior Advocate PR Raman submitted that the similarity in the name is obvious as the same name with the same spelling has been used by the defendant. Also, once the plaintiff received reports that sales of Patanjali’s ‘Coronil’ have been made at Hyderabad, Raman argued.
The plaintiff company submitted a list of customer companies that are situated across the country and also in Srilanka, Oman, Philippines, Vietnam, Uganda, Malaysia, Singapore and Kuwait. The sales invoices of the plaintiff of the product ‘Coronil-92 B’ have also been filed as a document along with the plaint.
In conclusion of his submissions, Adv Raman pointed out that the plaintiff has established substantial reputation in marketing their product Coronil and therefore, they have an inherent and statutory right for its protection of their registered trademark, owing to the extensive clientele they have across the country and also outside the country and also the substantial sales effected using the trade mark Coronil.
Court observed-
“The list of customer companies shows that huge industrial units like BHEL, NTPC Limited, Reliance industrial Ltd., Indian Oil Corporation and other such companies are the clients of the plaintiff.”
Further, Justice Karthikeyan granted interim injunction against Patanjali restraining them from using the trademark ‘Coronil’ in any manner whatsoever till June 30 and said-
“It is seen that the plaintiff has a registered trademark Coronil and the registration still subsists. Once the plaintiff has a registered trademark, protection has to be given from infringement. The law is clear on that aspect. The defendant has also claimed that he is going to market his product in the same name 'Coronil'. The defendant can also market their product, but they have to use a different name. They cannot infringe upon the right accrued to the plaintiff owing to the registration of the trademark Coronil as early as 1993, which registration still subsists.”