Delhi High Court imposes fine on Sun Pharma for concealing facts to obtain injunction against DWD Pharma

Delhi High Court imposes fine on Sun Pharma for concealing facts to obtain injunction against DWD Pharma

The pharmaceutical giant was ordered to pay Rs.10 lakh penalty

The Delhi High Court has imposed a fine on Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd for concealing facts to obtain an ex-parte injunction order in its trademarks dispute with DWD Pharmaceuticals

While passing the judgment, the bench of Justice Navin Chawla said that Sun Pharma could not be allowed to escape the consequences of having concealed material facts from the court.

Justice Chawla ordered, "Such a practice, not only has to be deprecated, but must also be penalized. The plaintiff, therefore, is saddled with a cost of Rs.10 lakh to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks."

In May, the court had granted an injunction in favor of Sun, restraining DWD from using the mark 'Folzest' or any other trademark, deceptively like Sun's mark 'Forzest'.

(While Forzest is used for treating erectile dysfunction in men, Folzest is a multivitamin for pregnant women to lower the risk of pre-term births).

DWD approached the court stating it was the registered proprietor of the trademark 'Zest' since 1983 and had a family of registered marks with 'Zest' forming a part. It stated that Sun Pharma was aware of the fact since their earlier application for registration of the mark 'Exezest' was opposed by DWD in 2009. The matter was still pending with the Trade Marks Registry.

DWD further informed about opposing Sun's registration of 'Triolmezest'. Also, at the time of the registration of Sun's 'Forzest', DWD's 'Ferizest' was cited as a conflicting mark. However, these facts were not disclosed to the court by Sun to get the ex-parte order.

The bench observed that the material facts were indeed concealed and the two marks were deceptively similar. Given the fact that the disputed goods were medicinal, Sun would be entitled to ad-interim relief.

However, he added that in a matter related to medicine, it was not just about the right of a private litigant, but also the interest of the public was kept in mind, as even a remote chance of deception or confusion could lead to disastrous consequences.