- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
Delhi High Court Restrains Company From Infringing Copyright Of Mankind Pharma In Content Of Its Website
[ By Bobby Anthony ]The Delhi High Court has restrained a pharmaceutical company called Lee Pharmaceuticals from infringing the copyright of Mankind Pharma in the contents of its website.After considering the evidence and the content of the website of Lee Pharmaceuticals of Lee House being identical, the court granted a permanent injunction in favour of Mankind Pharma Ltd and against...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to 
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion

The Delhi High Court has restrained a pharmaceutical company called Lee Pharmaceuticals from infringing the copyright of Mankind Pharma in the contents of its website.
After considering the evidence and the content of the website of Lee Pharmaceuticals of Lee House being identical, the court granted a permanent injunction in favour of Mankind Pharma Ltd and against the defendant.
The defendant has been restrained from infringing the copyright of the plaintiff (Mankind) in the contents of its website, the court ruled.
The defendant was also restrained by the court from passing off its business as being affiliated to that of the plaintiff (Mankind).
Mankind Pharma stated that Lee Pharmaceuticals was incorporated in 2013 and the plaintiff (Mankind) came to know about its website in February 2014.
A perusal of the defendant’s (Lee) website revealed that the entire website, including the photographs, images, etc. of the plaintiff has been copied by the defendant, it said.
After going through the screenshots of the websites of both the companies, the court said use of such identical content is not only infringement of the plaintiff's copyright but could also lead to misrepresentation that the defendant is either affiliated to, or is a group company of the plaintiff.


