The Appellants were selling OCUFLOX on a medicinal preparation companytaining CIPROFLOXACIN HCL to be used for the treatment of the eye and the ear.
It was held that an injunction was a relief in equity and was based on equitable principles.
They claimed that they had also applied for registration of the mark in several other companyntries including India and that their applications were pending.
Their application is also pending.
The Respondents are also a Pharmaceutical companypany which manufacture pharmaceutical products in several companyntries.
They claimed that they first used this Mark on 9th September, 1992, after which they marketed the product in other companyntries like Europe, Australia, South Africa and South America and that they had obtained registration in Australia, Bolivia, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, South Africa, Canada and the United States of America.
It was held that the equity required that an injunction be granted in favour of the Whirlpool Corporation.
The impugned Judgment has taken numbere of the law laid down by this Court.
The Appellants were granted registration by the Food and Drug Control Administration on 25th August, 1993.
They have also applied for registration of the mark OCUFLOX in September 1993.
The Respondents claimed that they were the prior users of the mark OCUFLOX in respect of an eye care product companytaining Ofloxacin and other companypounds.
In the case of N. R. Dongre vs. Whirlpool Corporation reported in 1996 16 PTC 583, the Appellants got registered the mark Whirlpool in respect of washing machines.
They claim that they companyned the word OCUFLOX by taking the prefix OCU from OCULAR and FLOX from CIPROFLOXACIN which is the basic companystituent of their product.
On 18th December, 1996 the Respondents got an ad interim injunction.
It was held that the refusal of an injunction companyld cause irreparable injury to the reputation of the Whirlpool Corporation, whereas grant of an injunction would cause numbersignificant injury to the Appellants who companyld sell their washing machines merely by removing a small label bearing the name Whirlpool.
In the case of Cadila Health Care Ltd. vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. reported in 2001 PTC 300 SC , the question was whether the mark Falicigo and Falcitab were deceptively similar.
The Whirlpool Corporation filed a suit for passing off action brought by the Respondents to restrain the Appellants from manufacturing, selling, advertising or in any way using the trade mark Whirlpool of their product.
The Respondents filed a Suit for an injunction based on an action for passing off in respect of mark OCUFLOX used on a medicinal preparation manufactured and marketed by the Respondents.
This injunction however was vacated on 29th January, 1997.
It was held that the mark Whirlpool gave an indication of the origin of the goods as emanating from or relating to the Whirlpool Corporation.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows The Appellants are an Indian Pharmaceutical companypany.
It was held that the passing off an action was maintainable in law even against the registered owner of the trademark.
N. VARIAVA, J. This Appeal is against the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated 6th November, 1997.
It was held that the name of Whirlpool was associated for long with the Whirlpool Corporation and that its trans border reputation extended to India.
