In Zuventus Healthcare Limited v Zaventis Health Care Private Limited, the plaintiff applied to Delhi High Court for an urgent permanent injunction without having given notice to the defendant. The plaintiff alleged the defendant had infringed its trademark and copyright and was passing them off as its own. The application claimed that its intellectual property rights in its trademark Zuventus, its tradename Zuventus Healthcare Limited, its device mark and its domain name were being infringed by Zaventis Health Care Private Limited.
The plaintiff was engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations, with a wide network of dealers, distributors and stockists through which it manufactured and marketed its range of products. It had extensive manufacturing facilities across India with an R&D centre in Pune.
The plaintiff submitted that it had adopted its trademark Zuventus and its trade name Zuventus Healthcare Limited and used them continuously and openly since 2002 in the course of its commercial activities. The plaintiff was the sole and exclusive adopter and user of the trademark and trade name in the sector. Because the products manufactured and sold by the plaintiff had borne the trademark and trade name during the previous 20 years, they had acquired a secondary meaning exclusively associated with the plaintiff.
The plaintiff had obtained registration of the mark Zuventis as a word mark, device mark and logo in classes 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 16, 19, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 37, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, and 42. The plaintiff, as the originator and owner of the device mark had used it on every product and on its website. The device was an original artwork within the definition in section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957. The products of the plaintiff bearing its trademark and tradename were available in many countries other than India, making the trademark and trade name well known to the public in those nations.
The plaintiff became aware of the illegal and unauthorised adoption of the mark, Zaventis Health Care, by Zaventis Health Care Private Limited by way of advertisement. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant’s trademark was visually, structurally and phonetically similar to its registered trademark.
The plaintiff filed an opposition in October 2023 with the Registrar of Trademarks against the defendant’s application for the mark Zaventis Health Care Private Limited. The counter-statement filed by the defendant relied on false and frivolous grounds, failing to justify the use of its trademark. The plaintiff argued that the adoption by the defendant was dishonest at the outset.
Delhi High Court unsurprisingly found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for the grant of an injunction. As the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss, the court accepted that the interim injunction should be granted even though the defendant had been given no notice of the proceedings. The balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff. The court also ordered that the plaintiff did not have to submit the dispute to pre-litigation mediation under section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Pending a further hearing, the defendant’s directors and all third parties in the chain of infringement were restrained from using Zaventis in whole or part as a trademark and a domain name. They were also restrained from using any other mark, name or domain name identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s marks, devices and website. The injunction encompassed pharmaceuticals and medicinal products, which would infringe or pass off the plaintiff’s registered trademark, trade name and copyright.
The decision has confirmed the commitment of courts to uphold intellectual property rights, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry. Courts have always shown a determination to protect the health of the public from ineffective and deleterious products. This is the latest in a long line of cases upholding established trademarks, condemning infringement and reinforcing the importance of brand integrity and consumer trust. It is a useful reminder that businesses must be cautious when designing, adopting and using trademarks. Courts will ensure fair competition and protect innovation. Blatantly infringing intellectual property will have severe consequences.
