The court also directed immediate withdrawal of all of the products bearing the impugned marks INASOL, TANZOL, SUPER PEPTI, BON APETIT, BIG APETITE, IBUCAB
Sending out a "loud and clear message to the infamous fraternity of fraudsters and counterfeit drug manufacturers", the Bombay High Court on Friday imposed a penalty of Rs 1.50 crore on the owners of two pharmaceutical companies. Twin Impax and National Laboratories had violated the trademark rights of another pharmaceutical company named Shalina Laboratories Private Limited.
A single-judge bench of Justice SJ Kathawala, while ordering the companies in question to deposit a fine with Tata Memorial Hospital, said, "They (fraud drug manufacturers) must get the message loud and clear that courts will deal with them sternly and uphold the rights of hapless consumers who are made victims of the nefarious activities of such unethical drug manufacturers."
The court also directed immediate withdrawal of all of the products bearing the impugned marks INASOL, TANZOL, SUPER PEPTI, BON APETIT, BIG APETITE, IBUCAB, and their variants from the market and ordered that the same be destroyed.
Further, the court affirmed the provision to cancel manufacturing trading licenses that are granted under the impugned trademarks for these products and mandated pharma companies to abide by the rules and regulations of the Food and Drug Administration. The court expressed its concern over the increasing cases of such kind of drugs being sold.
Shalina Laboratories, which manufactures distributes and sells different products, had moved the court seeking to restrain copycat companies from using its trademark Tanzol. However, when the court receiver visited the premises to seize the counterfeit products, it was found that several other products' trademarks of many pharmaceutical companies were being copied.
Advocates Hiren Kamod, on behalf of the complainant, apprised the court about a 2003 criminal complaint lodged by Shalina laboratories against the same owners and how they were acquitted by the magistrate court in 2009 after they undertook to refrain from infringing.
To this, the court said, "There is no iota of doubt in my mind that the adoption of word mark, artwork, colour scheme, font style, the manner of writing, and trade dress of the defendants' impugned products is fraudulent. The blatant copying/reproduction of the plaintiffs' trademark/label by the Defendants speaks volumes of their dishonesty. It is evident that the only intention of the Defendants is to come as close as possible to the plaintiffs' products in order to make illicit gains."
Kathawala also backed the need for stringent punishment to pharmaceutical companies indulging in fraudulent means. "Several agencies of the government, including the courts, are the vanguards of public interest and probity, endeavoring to ensure the safety and security of the public at large. Therefore, any issue pertaining to public health is of paramount importance. When the court is confronted with infringers and fraudsters such as the present defendants, whose callous disregard regards the faith placed in them with the intent to hoodwink innocent consumers and fill their coffers at the cost of the health and safety of these trusting consumers, then the court has no option but to come down heavily and unsparingly on such errant parties."
SHELVED ONCE AND FOR ALL
The court also directed immediate withdrawal of all of the products bearing the impugned marks INASOL, TANZOL, SUPER PEPTI, BON APETIT, BIG APETITE, IBUCAB
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Pharma")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}