GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. Vs. CURETECH SKINCARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to the order passed by me yesterday, the Directors of the Defendant No.2 are present in court.

(2.) The facts and circumstances in which this suit came to be filed by the Plaintiff are already mentioned in detail in the order dated 8th Aug. 2018. Pursuant to the said order dated 8th Aug. 2018, the Court Receiver visited the premises of the Defendants and seized the impugned products of the Defendants bearing the impugned trade mark/label CLODID. The Court Receiver has filed its Report. A statement provided by the Defendant No.2 containing the annual figures (quantity) of impugned goods manufactured/sold by the Defendant No.2 between the period 2007-2008 and 2017-2018 is also annexed to the Report. As per the said statement, the total quantity of the impugned medicinal products bearing the impugned trade mark CLODID manufactured and sold by the Defendants is about 65,23,554 (Sixty Five Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Four).

(3.) Mr. C.M. Lokesh, Ld. Advocate appearing for both the Defendants upon instructions submitted that the Defendant No.1 is only a contract manufacturer who was manufacturing the impugned products for and on behalf of the Defendant No.2 who claims to be the proprietor of the impugned mark. He submitted that Defendant No.1 has never claimed any right in respect of the impugned mark. Copy of the Contract Manufacturing Agreement dated 2nd Sept. 2013 executed between the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 also forms a part of the report filed by the Court Receiver. He submitted that under the Contract Manufacturing Agreement, the art-work, labels and marks were provided by the Defendant No.2 to Defendant No.1. He submitted that the Defendant No.1 is ready to submit to a decree of permanent injunction.