Court vacates ex-parte injunction on 'LOPARIN' trademark, allows use with sales statement condition.

The court vacated the ex-parte injunction, permitting the defendant to use the trademark 'LOPARIN' with the condition to submit yearly sales statements. This decision was influenced by the substantial product differences, balance of convenience favoring the defendant, and lack of clear proof of dishonest adoption. The court highlighted that these determinations were preliminary and would not impact the final judgment based on complete evidence.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Prima facie case of trademark infringement and phonetic similarity.
2. Delay and acquiescence in filing the suit.
3. Balance of convenience and irreparable injury.
4. Compliance with procedural requirements and admissibility of documents.
5. Application for impleadment by Unichem Laboratories Ltd.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Prima Facie Case of Trademark Infringement and Phonetic Similarity:
The plaintiff, a registered proprietor of the trademark 'LOPRIN', asserted that the defendant's use of 'LOPARIN' constituted a blatant infringement due to visual and phonetic similarity. The plaintiff argued that this similarity could mislead consumers, especially given the imperfect memory of the average consumer. The court noted that both products were related to heart ailments but differed in their preventive and curative functions. The plaintiff's product, 'LOPRIN', is an anti-platelet drug sold as tablets, while the defendant's 'LOPARIN' is an anticoagulant administered via injection. The court found significant differences in the method of administration, packaging, and price, which reduced the likelihood of confusion.

2. Delay and Acquiescence in Filing the Suit:
The defendant contended that the plaintiff delayed filing the suit despite knowing about the defendant's product launch in October 2005. The court acknowledged that mere delay is not a ground for refusing an injunction if the adoption of the mark was dishonest. However, it was not established with certainty that the defendant's adoption was dishonest. The court emphasized that acquiescence involves knowingly allowing another party to build a trade, which was not conclusively proven here.

3. Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Injury:
The court weighed the balance of convenience, noting the defendant's significant sales of approximately Rs. 8 crores within a year and the established market presence since October 2005. The court found that the balance of convenience favored the defendant, as an injunction would cause substantial disruption to their business. The plaintiff's claim of potential confusion was mitigated by the distinct differences in the products' administration, packaging, and pricing.

4. Compliance with Procedural Requirements and Admissibility of Documents:
The defendant challenged the admissibility of the Business Transfer Agreement due to non-payment of stamp duty. The court did not delve deeply into this issue at the interlocutory stage, focusing instead on the prima facie findings necessary for interim relief. The court also did not consider the effect of the subsequent assignment deed or the impleadment application by Unichem Laboratories Ltd., as these issues were deemed secondary to the immediate question of interim relief.

5. Application for Impleadment by Unichem Laboratories Ltd.:
Unichem Laboratories Ltd. sought to be impleaded as a co-plaintiff, asserting ownership of the trademark 'LOPRIN' and a principal-to-principal agreement with the plaintiff. The court did not address this application in detail, as it was not central to the decision on interim relief. The focus remained on the prima facie case and the balance of convenience.

Conclusion:
The court vacated the ex-parte injunction granted earlier, allowing the defendant to continue using the trademark 'LOPARIN' but required them to file yearly sales statements. The decision was based on the significant differences between the products, the balance of convenience favoring the defendant, and the lack of conclusive evidence of dishonest adoption by the defendant. The court emphasized that these findings were prima facie and would not influence the final adjudication based on full evidence.

---