The plaintiffs, comprising four entities—Cedar Properties and Trading LLP, Martin and Harris Laboratories Limited, Martin & Harris (P) Ltd., and Walter Bushnell Private Limited—claimed ownership of the trademark “DROTIN,” which was registered in 1997 under Class 5 for medicinal and pharmaceutical products. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants’ use of “DROTOWIN” was deceptively similar and intended to exploit the goodwill and reputation of their well-established brand.
The plaintiffs’ case was built on several key points. First, they established their ownership of the “DROTIN” trademark through registration and a deed of assignment dated March 30, 2017, which transferred rights to Cedar Properties and Trading LLP. Second, they demonstrated the extensive use and reputation of the mark, supported by annual sales figures exceeding Rs. 94 crores for the fiscal year 2021–22, as evidenced by chartered accountant certificates. Third, they highlighted the similarity between “DROTIN” and “DROTOWIN,” noting that the latter was merely a slavish imitation with minor additions (“OW”) to the plaintiffs’ mark. The plaintiffs also emphasised that both marks were used for identical medicinal products aimed at treating abdominal pain, increasing the likelihood of consumer confusion.
The defendants, Maskon Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. (Defendant No. 1), Bharat Pharmaceuticals (Defendant No. 2), and Binapani Nursing Home & Hospital (Defendant No. 3), were accused of manufacturing, marketing, and selling the infringing products. While Defendant No. 1 initially filed a written statement claiming it was merely a manufacturer for Defendant No. 2 and did not assert rights over the mark, it later ceased participation in the proceedings. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 failed to appear or file written statements despite being served, leading the court to proceed against them ex parte.
The court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction on April 7, 2022, restraining the defendants from using “DROTOWIN” or “DROTOWIN DS.” Subsequently, the plaintiffs sought a summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), arguing that the defendants had no real prospect of defending the claim. The court agreed, citing the defendants’ lack of substantive defence and their failure to participate in the proceedings.
In its analysis, the court underscored the principles established in Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. vs Kunwer Sachdev, which advocate for the expeditious disposal of commercial disputes through summary judgments when the defendant lacks a realistic defence. The court found that the defendants’ adoption of “DROTOWIN” was dishonest and intended to capitalise on the plaintiffs’ reputation. The structural and visual similarity between the marks, coupled with their use for identical products, clearly established infringement and passing off. The court passed a summary judgment in favour of the plaintiffs, granting a permanent injunction against Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to prevent further use of the infringing mark. The plaintiffs did not press for additional reliefs, such as damages or rendition of accounts, focusing instead on the injunction./