Delhi High Court Grants Permanent Injunction Against Use Of 'AMUL' Trademark By Pharmaceutical Businesses, Imposes ₹5 Lakhs In Damages
Delhi High Court Grants Permanent Injunction Against Use Of 'AMUL' Trademark By Pharmaceutical Businesses, Imposes ₹5 Lakhs In Damages
The Delhi High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favor of Amul against businesses in the pharmaceutical sector from using the 'AMUL' Trademark on their products. The court also imposed costs and damages of ₹5 lakhs on the defendants for infringing on Amul's well-known trademark.
Justice Mini Pushkarna observed that an ordinary customer could be misled into believing that the defendants are associated with Amul, thereby giving them an unfair advantage and harming the reputation of Amul's trademark. The court stated, “An ordinary consumer, having average intelligence and without minute examination of the background of the defendants, is likely to be confused that the defendants have some association or connection with the plaintiffs. Thus, the use of the mark 'AMUL' by the defendants gives an unfair advantage to them and is detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the plaintiff's well-known registered trademark.”
The case originated when Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd., known as Amul (plaintiff no. 1), authorized plaintiff no. 2 to market its products using the 'AMUL' trademark nationwide. The plaintiffs alleged that Bio Logic And Psychotropics India Private Ltd. (defendant no. 1) was marketing an antipsychotic medication under the 'AMUL' mark through various e-commerce platforms.
After the plaintiffs issued a legal notice to the defendants to cease the trademark use, the defendants claimed to have invented the trademark in 2013. They also filed a trademark application shortly after receiving the notice, asserting their prior use of the 'AMUL' mark.
The plaintiffs sought a permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants for trademark infringement and profit-making.
The High Court referenced its earlier order dated December 9, 2022, which had restrained the defendants from using Amul's trademark and appointed a local commissioner to investigate BioLogic's premises. The Commissioner’s report revealed purchase orders and invoices for infringing products dated from 2016 to 2021 and confirmed that the defendants were manufacturing these products before 2016.
The defendants’ counsel stated that they had ceased marketing goods under the infringing mark and had no remaining stock. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs' counsel requested costs and damages to cover various expenses, including court and counsel fees, and payments to the local commissioner.
The court confirmed that the defendants had infringed upon Amul's well-known trademark and were not entitled to use the 'AMUL' mark or any deceptively similar marks. It noted that the defendants acted with malice in infringing Amul's trademark and could not claim ignorance of its prior existence or reputation.
The court remarked, “The defendants have no plausible justification for adopting the plaintiffs' trademark, other than to ride upon the plaintiffs' immense reputation and goodwill.” It highlighted that the defendants failed to file a written statement or provide any valid reasoning for their use of the 'AMUL' mark, as well as their assertions of inventing the trademark.
The court found that the defendants’ actions indicated “malafide and dishonesty” in adopting the trademark and thus ruled in favor of Amul, granting a permanent injunction against the defendants.
The court also restrained the defendants, including their partners, agents, distributors, marketers, and suppliers, from manufacturing, selling, or advertising any products bearing the 'AMUL' logo or any deceptively similar marks.
Regarding costs, the court considered the defendants’ conduct, noting their continued use of the infringing mark from 2013 to 2022. It held that the plaintiffs were entitled to costs and damages, awarding costs of Rs. 4 lakhs and damages of Rs. 1 lakh to Amul, to be paid by the defendants within six months of the order.
The Court also directed the defendants to destroy the infringing goods that were confiscated by the local commissioner and then returned to them in the presence of Amul's representatives.
