- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- 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
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- 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
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Coming down heavily on yoga guru Ramdev’s Patanjali Ayurved Ltd for “chasing profits by exploiting people’s fear and panic” to sell its immunity booster tablet Coronil, the Madras High Court on Thursday slapped a penalty of Rs. 10 lakh on it.The court also refused to vacate the interim injunction restraining Patanjali from using the name Coronil for its tablet in a trade mark...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Coming down heavily on yoga guru Ramdev’s Patanjali Ayurved Ltd for “chasing profits by exploiting people’s fear and panic” to sell its immunity booster tablet Coronil, the Madras High Court on Thursday slapped a penalty of Rs. 10 lakh on it.
The court also refused to vacate the interim injunction restraining Patanjali from using the name Coronil for its tablet in a trade mark infringement case.
The case was filed by city-based company Arudra Engineers Private Ltd that had registered the trademarks “Coronil-92 B and Coronil-213 SPL” in 1993 and holds rights over them till 2027.
The company sells an anti-corrosion product - a chemical agent that undertakes to sanitise and clean heavy industrial machinery and containment units at factories.
Apart from Patanjali, the other defendant in the case was Divya Yog Mandir Trust that makes the tablet.
The court order came in the petition filed by Patanjali and Divya Yog to vacate the interim injunction against the use of the name Coronil for its tablet.
The court said: “Insofar as costs are concerned, the defendants have repeatedly projected that they are Rs. 10,000 crore company. However, they are still chasing further profits by exploiting the fear and panic among the general public by projecting a cure for the coronavirus, when actually their ‘Coronil Tablet’ is not a cure but rather an immunity booster for cough, cold and fever.”
“The defendants must realize that there are organisations which are helping the people in this critical period without seeking recognition and it would only be appropriate that they are made to pay costs to them,” it ruled.
The court ordered Patanjali and Divya Yog to pay jointly Rs 5 lakh each to the Dean, Adyar Cancer Institute, Chennai and to the Dean, Government Yoga and Naturopathy Medical College & Hospital, Chennai.
In both the organisations, treatment are accorded free of cost without any claim to either trademark, trade name, patent or design, but only with service as a motto, the court said.
“Costs to be paid on or before 21.08.2020, and a memo in this regard, to be filed before the Registry, High Court Madras, on or before 25.08.2020,” it ordered.