Counsels from Athena Legal led by Partner Adv. Simranjeet Singh who acted for both M/s Patanjali Ayurved Ltd and Divya Yog Mandir Trust along with Mr P. Giridharan and the Senior Counsels-C. Aryama Sundaram and Satish Parasaran in a matter challenging the single judge bench order against Coronil trademark. The bench comprising of Justices R. Subbiah and C. Saravanan is hearing the matter.
Background of Dispute
The application (O.A.No.258 of 2020) filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S Rules R/w. Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. in a case titled M/s.Arudra Engineers Private Limited vs. M/s.Pathanjali Ayurved Limited & Ors (C.S.No.163 of 2020) it was prayed before the Hon’ble Court to pass an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents, their promoters, assigns, successors-in-interest, licensees, franchisees, partners, directors, representatives, servants, distributors, employees, agents etc., or anyone associated with them from infringing the applicant’s registered trademarks bearing the name “Coronil” and from using the objectionable trademarks and/or deceptive variation of the applicant’s aforementioned trademarks singularly or in conjunction with any word/s or monogram/s/logo/s upon and in relation to their products/business in any manner whatsoever pending disposal of the suit.
The suit had been filed by M/s. Arudra Engineering Private Limited, originally against M/s.Pathanaili Ayurved Limited, having an office at New Delhi, and subsequently, by amendment also against Divya Yog Mandir Trust, having an office at Haridwar, Uttarkhand, seeking a judgment and decree against the defendants for grant of permanent injunction against infringement of the plaintiff’s registered trademark bearing the name “Coronil” by restraining the defendants or anybody acting under them from using the said trademark or deceptive variation of the said trademark in their products/business and for a direction to the defendants to deliver up to the plaintiff for destruction the entire stock of products or any other materials bearing the objectionable trademark “Coronil” either identical or with deceptive variations of the plaintiff’s trademark “Coronil” and for costs of the suit.
Along with the suit, the plaintiff had filed an application, seeking an order of interim injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the registered trademark “Coronil” and from using the trademark or any variation in relation to their product/business. This Court granted an ex-parte order of interim injunction on 17.07.2020 and directed compliance of the stipulations under Order XXXIX Rule 3(a) of C.P.C.
The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were deriving unjust pecuniary benefits at the cost of the plaintiff’s reputation. The plaintiff submitted a copy of the registered trademark which was registered in the year 1993 for acid inhibitor under the name of “Coronil – 92B” and “Coronil – 213 SPL” It was contended that the plaintiff has a well-established business in India as well as abroad for over a period of 20 years. They have customers like NTPC, BHEL, Samsung, Reliance, Indian Oil Corporation in India. They also emphasized on the fact that the plaintiff had established goodwill and reputation in the industry in which they function. “Coronil” is a unique term and the plaintiff has attained the trademark for using it. (Corrosion + Nil). It was stated that the defendants had indicated a shift in their stand – from projecting their product as a cure for COVID and then being an immunity booster against cough and cold. It was stated that according to Sec.29 (4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 – it protects the owner of a registered trademark, even when there is an attempt to use the very same trademark for dissimilar industries.
Order of the Single Bench
As per the order of the single bench of the Madras High Court, it was declared by the Court that it is the duty of any entity filing for registering a Trademark to get it checked by the Trademark Registry. The Trademark registry then researches and informs the party about any prevailing Trademark with the similar name. If the said entity fails to get it checked then the liability lies on the entity to pay the damages to the existing trademark that is already registered with the same name. It is important to note here that the party cannot plead ignorance and innocence and seek indulgence from the Court. In the present case, Patanjali being a big company cannot assume that it can use any small company’s trademark. If the mark is a registered trademark then the infringers have to pay the penalty. Accordingly, the cost of Rs. 10 Lakh was also levied. This judgment is under challenge before the Division Bench of the Madras High Court.
Present development
Insisting upon an interim order until the disposal of the appeal, the counsel said the Ayurveda medicines were being sold only as Divya Coronil tablets and that Patanjali maintains a full statement of accounts regarding the sale. Mr Parasaran said Patanjali and Divya Yog Mandir Trust would suffer irreparable damages if the single judge’s order did not stay. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court has issued an interim stay on the single Bench order, which had restrained Patanjali Ayurved and the Divya Yog Mandir Trust from using the word “Coronil” in relation to its immunity-boosting products and imposing a cost of ₹10 lakh on them for commercial exploitation of the fear around COVID-19. The court is expected to take the hearing in two weeks time.
Quick Conversation
On being asked by Indian Law Watch, Adv. Simranjeet, Partner Athena Legal that Coronil is fighting multiple legal battles in various jurisdiction, in view of the same, do you see the launch of Coronil as a pre-mature campaign?
“I don’t think the campaign was premature. All that was sought to be done was to follow the directives/notifications of the Ministry. The Ministry itself directed for research on ayurvedic formulations for COVID management. On the basis of which proper research was carried out at the Patanjali Research Institute and trials conducted as mandated in the ministry of Ayush letter dated 21st April 2020. Only on the basis of the positive results in the trails on COVID patients and subsequent clearance by the Ministry vide its letter dated 30th June 2020 was the product launched. It’s relevant to mention that that 30th June 2020 letter by the Ministry of Ayush was provided only after the ministry scrutinized our reply to their queries, which also included the details of the trials as mentioned above.”
Image created: Indian Law Watch
Add Comment