In case of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v. Punam Devi the plaintiff had worked in the production of specialised medications since 1978. In 2014, they purchased all of Ranbaxy Laboratories' assets as well as its intellectual property, including the RANBAXY trademark and RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED.
According to allegations, the plaintiff had a combined sale of more than Rs. 30,000 Crores and promotes medications and formulations in more than 150 countries under a wide array of well-known trademarks. It was further asserted that the plaintiff had 10 top-tier research centers and 45 production facilities spread over six continents.
The claimant is currently the owner of the trademarks RANBAXY and RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED all over the world. It was claimed that Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. adopted the trade name RANBAXY in the year 1961 and sought for its registration in 1991.
Furthermore, it was claimed that the plaintiff had made efforts to make the trademark and corporate name well-known and had spent a sizable sum of money on sales promotion, advertising, and publicity of the same. As a result, it was claimed, the plaintiff's trademark had helped it build a significant reputation and goodwill.
When the application for the registration of the trademark RANBAXY LABORATORIES in class 35 was published in the Trademarks Journal in the third week of August 2019, the plaintiff learned about the defendant's mark. The plaintiff then conducted further research and learned that the defendant had filed another application under class 5 that was also on a "proposed to be used" basis and that this application had been rejected under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act of 1999 because there were already registered similar marks.
A customer with average intelligence and imperfect memory is likely to be misled and deceived by the defendant's activity in adopting a mark that is an obvious and slavish replica of the plaintiff's well-known trademark and its formative marks because the goods are identical. By misleading the public and creating the false impression that the goods and services offered by the Defendant under the contested mark have some association or connection with the Plaintiff when none does, the Defendant intends to unfairly capitalise on the goodwill associated with Plaintiff's registered trademark RANBAXY, causing harm and loss to the Plaintiff.
Despite receiving several notifications, the defendant did not show up, therefore the court chose to continue with the case ex parte. Since the defendant has decided not to challenge the lawsuit, the court first ruled that the plaintiff does not need to submit proof in the form of an affidavit because the averments in the plaint are supported by an affidavit, and the case can therefore be dismissed. The Court noted that the plaintiff is a legitimately registered entity.
The defendant applied for the contested trademark at the same time that the Central Licensing Authority issued it a drug licence, according to the court, and the plaintiff had a reasonable suspicion that the defendants may begin doing business in Delhi at that time.
The court ruled that the trademarks RANBAXY and RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED are structurally, phonologically, and aesthetically identical, and that the goods—pharmaceutical medicines in class 5—are also the same.
The Court additionally ruled that a case for trademark infringement under Section 29(2)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is made out due to the similarity between the trademark's identity and the products and services it covers, which is likely to lead to public misunderstanding.
The court ruled that the difference in layout, packaging, etc. would not matter in a case alleging trademark infringement once it was established that the defendant had adopted key elements of the brand. As a result, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's lawsuit and issued a lifetime ban on the defendants' use of the tradename “RANBAXY LABORATORIES” and the Court awarded costs equivalent to the amount of Rs. 6,00,000.