delhi high court

Delhi High Court: In a petition filed by Humdard National Foundation Limited (petitioner) seeking directions that Ayurvedic manufacturers ought not to be permitted to use the expression ‘ROGAN BADAM SHIRIN/ ROUGHAN BADAM SHIREEN’ for BADAM TAIL/ ALMOND OIL which, as per them, is meant only for Unani medicine/ drugs. Prathiba M Singh, J., directed the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks (CGPDTM) /Trade Marks Registry to proceed in accordance with the law.

The letter stated that with respect to many Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani drug manufacturers not adhering to provisions for labelling and naming of the products in accordance with the drug license obtained, it was clarified that Raughan-EBadam Shireen/ Badam Shireen to be mentioned as Unani Medicine and Vatama (वाताम)/ Vadama (वादाम)/ Vatada (वाताद)/ Vatada taila (वातद तैल) mentioned as Ayurveda Medicine in their respective authoritative books in the First Schedule of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Thus, all State Licensing Authority were requested to ensure that Ayurvedic drug license should be issued for Vatada taila (वाताद तैल) / Badam taila and Unani drug license should be issued for Raughan-E-Badam Shireen/ Badam Shireen as defined under section 3(a) of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 and in accordance with Rule 157 (1B) of Drug & Cosmetics Rules 1945.

As per the letter written to the Licensing Authority/Drug Controller (Ayush) placed on record revealed that compliance has been made. The Court remarked that as the respondent has already communicated to the State licensing authorities that the use of the name Raughan-E-Badam Shireen and Badam Shireen would require a Unani Drug License, thus, the relief sought for in the instant petition stands satisfied.

Further, a letter written to the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks and GI, Head- Trade Marks Registry stated that the CGPDTM is requested to review trade mark “HAMDARD ROGHAN BADAM SHIRIN” for using of the descriptive term of classical medicine “ROGHAN BADAM SHIRIN” and prefix “HAMDARD” as it is a contravention of Rule 157 (1B) of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. Thus, the Court directed the CGPDTM/Trade Marks Registry to proceed in accordance with the law.

[Hamdard National Foundation v Govt NCT of Delhi, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2842, decided on 12-05-2023]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Mr. Shivendra Pratap Singh and Mr. Navdeep Suhag, Advocates for the Petitioner;

Mr. Karn Bhardwaj, ASC for R-1 and 3. Mr. Jivesh Tiwari, Sr P.C. with Ms. Samiksha, Advocate for the Respondent.

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.