Delhi High Court: In a suit filed for seeking permanent injunction against the defendants on account of manufacturing and selling counterfeit bleeding management devices which had the plaintiff’s marks ‘ETHICON’, ‘LIGACLIP’, ‘SURGICEL’ and ‘SURGICEL’ formative marks and also, its distinctive trade dress, Pratibha M. Singh, J., considering the nature of the matter, directed that a fresh status report to be placed on record by the Delhi Police regarding the whereabouts of the defendants. The Court sought details regarding the travel details of the defendants and whether any new passport had been issued to them and enquiries might also be made from the Unique Identification Authority of India (‘UIDAI’) regarding the Aadhar numbers of the defendants to determine whether any fresh mobile connections had been issued to the defendants. Further, the GST Department should also place on record any transaction details associated with the GST number linked with the defendants. Enquiries should also be made from the Income Tax Department regarding the last filed returns under the PAN numbers of the defendants. Therefore, the Court stated that the Delhi Police, Bureau of immigration, UIDAI, GST Department and IT Department should file the complete status report before the next date of hearing.
Background
In an instant case, the present Court vide its order dated 11-10-2019, granted an ad interim injunction against Defendant 1. Thereafter, on 14-01-2020, this Court closed the defendants’ rights to file their respective written statements as per Order 8 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and stated that the defendants had stopped appearing in the matter since 7-10-2021 and vide order dated 06-12-2022, the defendants in this matter proceeded ex-parte.
The plaintiff stated that the ‘SURGICEL’ mark was used in relation to a hemostatic agent which was used to control surgical bleeding. ‘SURGICEL’ helped in accelerating the hemostasis, a process which helped in controlling the bleeding of a patient during surgery. The ‘SURGICEL’ branded products were made out of oxidized regenerated cellulose, a material that had several qualities. Apart from, acting as an antimicrobial agent, it was useful in critical surgical procedures as it helped in controlling bleeding during surgery. Also, it was absorbable in the body, so it could be left inside the patient after surgery.
When the counterfeit products were detected, the plaintiff initiated a proceeding in the USA, which revealed that the defendants had made supplies to the person against whom proceedings were initiated. The plaintiff contended that the defendants’ activities posed a huge threat to the human life owing to the defendants, non-compliance with stringent quality check on the efficacy and safety of the products that had been maintained by the plaintiff. The defendants’ adoption and unauthorized use of the plaintiff’s marks and sale of counterfeit products constituted infringement and passing off of the plaintiff’s trade marks.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that the defendants, who were a couple trading as Medserve had been involved in sale of these products for the last several years and there had been serious complaints against the said products.
Thus, considering the nature of the matter, the Court directed that a fresh status report to be place on record by the Delhi Police regarding the whereabouts of the defendants. The Court sought details regarding the travel details of the defendants and whether any new passport had been issued to the defendant couple. The Court stated that enquiries might also be made from the Unique Identification Authority of India (‘UIDAI’) regarding the Aadhar numbers of the defendants to determine whether any fresh mobile connections had been issued. Further, the GST Department should also place on record any transaction details associated with the GST number linked with the defendants. Enquiries should also be made from the Income Tax Department regarding the last filed returns under the PAN numbers of the defendants.
Therefore, the Court stated that the Delhi Police, Bureau of immigration, UIDAI, GST Department and IT Department should file the complete status report before the next date of hearing.
The matter would next be listed on 24-01-2024.
[Johnson and Johnson v. Pritamdas Arora, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7470, Order dated 22-11-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Plaintiff: Nancy Roy, Prakriti Varshney and Prashant, Advocates;
For the Defendant: Anurag Ahluwalia, Advocate
