Calcutta High Court
New Life Laboratories Private Limited vs Nlcare Private Limited on 29 April, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORIGINAL SIDE
COMMERCIAL DIVISION
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Krishna Rao
G.A. (COM) No. 1 of 2024
With
G.A. (COM) No. 2 of 2024
In
IP (COM) No. 22 of 2024
New Life Laboratories Private Limited
Versus
NLCARE Private Limited
Mr. Rudraman Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Siddhartha Das
Mr. Saptarshi Mukherjee
Mr. Akash Munshi
Mr. Harsh Tiwari
Mr. Souvik Kundu
... For the plaintiff.
Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sayan Roy Chowdhury
Mr. Tanmoy Roy
2
Mr. Rahul Vidani,
Mr. Bhavesh Garodia
... For the defendant.
Hearing Concluded On : 07.03.2025
Judgment on : 29.04.2025
Krishna Rao, J.:
1. The plaintiff has filed an application being G.A. (Com) No. 1 of 2024
praying for grant of interim order restraining the defendant from
infringing the plaintiff’s registered mark “NEW LIFE” by use of the mark
“NEW LIFE” and /or “NL”. By an order dated 19th August, 2024, this
Court passed an Ad-Interim ex-parte order against the defendant and
the same is still in existence. The defendant has filed an application
being G.A. (Com) No. 2 of 2024 praying for vacating of interim order.
2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for infringement and passing off. As per
the case of the plaintiff in the year 1961, one Dr. Mohammad Idrees
commenced practicing Homeopathy in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. In the
year 1970, the eldest son of Dr. Mohammad Idrees, namely, Dr.
Mohammed Ilyas joined the profession of practicing homeopathy and
prescribed innovative homeopathic medicines to his patients. Such
patients upon being cured of their ailments by such medications began
to fondly refer to the Dr. Ilyas as the giver of “new life” which give the
inspiration for Dr. Ilyas to adopt the trade name “NEW LIFE” to
represent his service. In order to expand the business, Dr. Ilyas opened
3
an outlet-come clinic for prescribing and selling homeopathic medicines
under the name and style of “NEW LIFE HOMEO STORE” as his sole
concern. The said Dr. Ilyas even devised a unique logo or device
containing the tradename i.e. “NEW LIFE” as the house mark of the
business of the said Dr. Ilyas.
3. Mr. Rudraman Bhattacharyya, Learned Senior Advocate representing
the plaintiff submits that due to rise in the popularity, goodwill,
revenues and profits of the business of Dr. Ilyas as homeopath and
homeopathic medicine merchant, Dr. Ilyas along with his wife, Mrs.
Ishrat Begum and his sons, namely, Dr. Mohammad Zakariya, the
eldest son, Dr. Mohammad Zaki, the second son and the Dr. Salman
Mohammad, the third son primarily promoted the plaintiff company in
the year 1995, which also expanded into manufacturing homeopathic
medications instead of merely trading in them.
4. Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that the entirety of the business of selling
homeopathic medicinal drugs setup by Dr. Ilyas came under the banner
of the plaintiff which became the principal proprietor of such business
including the goodwill attached thereto and the tangible and intangible
assets thereof. He submits that Dr. Ilyas by his conduct, effectively
waived his rights associated with the said moniker and the tradename
or trademark “NEW LIFE” which became valuable assets of the plaintiff
company.
4
5. Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that the plaintiff and its processor of
concern has invested substantial sums in research and development for
the purposes of manufacturing and selling various unique homeopathic
medications of multiple kinds that offer cures to persons suffering from
several ailments. He submits that the trademark “NEW LIFE” has
earned a glittering reputation in the market. He submits that the public
and people of the trade identity, the name “NEW LIFE” with the plaintiff
alone to the extent that it has become a household name across the
country. He submits that the members of the public and consumers
rely upon the plaintiff’s products bearing the trade mark “NEW LIFE”
regularly to address their daily needs for homeopathic medications.
6. Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that apart from the common law rights
acquired in respect of the mark “NEW LIFE” applied for and obtained
statutory protection thereof under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 by way of
registration being No. 2477030 in Class 35 with the Trade Marks
Registry.
7. Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that the plaintiff came to know that the
defendant has been infringing upon and passing off the trademark of
the plaintiff by utilizing the abbreviation of the name “NEW LIFE” i.e.
“NL” in its corporate name “NLCARE Private Limited”. He submits that
the defendant is engaged in the same business as the plaintiff i.e.
trading, selling, manufacturing, wholeselling, retailing, advertising and
marketing of homeopathic medicinal drugs or preparations.
5
8. Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that the plaintiff further came to know that
the defendant had made applications to register the said corporate
name with the Trade Marks Registry along with a deceptively similar
word mark and a deceptively similar logo containing the abbreviation of
the name “NEW LIFE” or the said name itself as well. He submits that
the plaintiff has immediately taken steps to file opposition to the
application No. 5762782 filed by the defendant. He submits that the
other two marks under application Nos. 5595531 and 5595533 stands
objected, the plaintiff has not filed oppositions against the same.
9. Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that the defendant is utilizing the
deceptively similar mark without permission or license from the plaintiff
who is the prior user and without any right to do so, for marketing and
selling the same goods or similar categories of goods as that of the
plaintiff. He submits that the deceptively similar marks are being
utilized: on its goods, as part of its packaging and trade dress and on the
hoardings and boards on its shops and outlets.
10. Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that the defendant is not only infringing
upon the registered trade mark of the plaintiff “NEW LIFE” but also
seeking to pass off its products and services as the products and
services of the plaintiff. He submits that the defendant by such acts is
seeking to erode the market share captured by the plaintiff under the
mark “NEW LIFE” and is seeking to redirect the goodwill associated
with trademark/ tradename “NEW LIFE”. He submits that the use of
offending names and marks by the defendant is likely to dilute the
6
distinctive character of the plaintiff’s trademark “NEW LIFE” which is
also its business and tradename.
11. Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that the defendant’s principal
shareholders/ directors and controlling minds are one Md. Zaki, Mrs.
Saima Zaki and Md. Faizan. Messrs. Md. Zaki and Md. Faizan are the
sons of late Dr. Ilyas and Mrs. Zaki is the wife of Md. Zaki. He submits
that Md. Zaki was a shareholder and director of the plaintiff at the time
of its founding. Mrs. Zaki and Md. Faizan had been inducted as
shareholders and directors of the plaintiff later. He submits that in the
year 2018, the said persons resigned from their directorship of the
plaintiff and disposed of their shareholdings in the plaintiff for valuable
consideration in favour of Md. Zakariya, the elder son of Dr. Ilyas, Md.
Salman, the third son of Dr. Ilyas, Md. Zaheer, fifth son of Dr. Ilyas,
Md. Azam, sixth son of Dr. Ilyas and along with Mrs. Ishrat Begum, wife
of Dr. Ilyas all being the directors of the plaintiff. He submits that upon
severing all ties with the plaintiff, the defendant was promoted by M/s.
Zaki and Faizan along with Mrs. Zaki in the year 2019 and the said
persons are at present directors of the defendant.
12. Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that M/s. Zaki and Faizan along with Mrs.
Zaki have set up the defendant concern with its deceptively similar and
infringing corporate name and have been running its business utilizing
the marks “NEW LIFE”.
7
13. Mr. Bhattacharyya has relied upon the judgment in the case of Surjeet
Book Depot vs. Surjeet Book Depot (P) Ltd. & Ors. reported in
MANU/DE/0513/1982 and submitted that the Delhi High Court held
that even a person named “Surjeet” could not use that name as his
trademark due to the mark “Surjeet Book” having become the registered
trademark of the partnership firm previously created by such person.
14. Mr. Bhattacharyya has relied upon the judgment in the case of Sri
Narasu’s Coffee Company Ltd. vs. Narasu‘s Sarathy Industries &
Anr. reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 38978 and submits that the
registered proprietor’s rights would have primacy and the descendants
of Mr. Sarathy could not claim to have proprietary rights over the mark
“Narasu”. It was held that only one person i.e. the Registered Proprietor
would have proprietary over the mark. The family members of the
originator of the mark “Narasu” could not claim to have proprietary
rights in the same.
15. Mr. Bhattacharyya has relied upon the judgment in the case of M/s.
Power Control Appliances vs. Sumeet Machines Pvt. Ltd. reported in
(1994) 2 SCC 448 and submitted that there can be only one mark, one
source and one proprietor, because it cannot have two origins and as
such, one trademark cannot be used in rivalry and in competition with
each other.
8
16. Mr. Bhattacharyya has relied upon the judgment in the case of
Dhananjay Rathi vs. Shree Vasu Steels Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. reported in
MANU/DE/3191/2023 and submitted that only the plaintiff is the
registered proprietor, whereas the defendant is not. The registration
certificate of the plaintiff with the wording “NEW LIFE” as the
prominent feature of the said mark has been registered with effect from
12th February, 2013 and the defendant’s registration applications are
pending.
17. Mr. Bhattacharyya has relied upon the judgment in the case of Gujarat
Bottling Co. Ltd. Vs. Coca Cola Co. & Ors. reported in (1995) 5 SCC
545 and submitted that the family members who are using the
plaintiff’s mark are doing so as common law licensees of the plaintiff. In
fact, they merely sell products manufactured by the plaintiff (without
manufacturing it themselves) and share profits with the plaintiff. Such
sales serve to enhance the mark’s distinctiveness. The oral licensing of
the mark to family members underscores the connection between the
mark and plaintiff. Such oral licenses are wholly permissible dehors the
Act.
18. Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, Learned Senior Advocate representing the
defendant submits that the plaintiff has deliberately and intentionally
suppressed material facts which are relevant for the purpose of
adjudication of the instant application. He submits that the plaintiff has
deliberately only mentioned that the suit was filed in the Delhi High
Court and was later withdrawn but the plaintiff deliberately not filed
9
the orders passed by the Delhi High Court which would prove that the
argument on the interim application were heard by the Delhi High
Court at length on several occasions and no interim injunction in
favour of the plaintiff was granted.
19. Mr. Bachawat submits that the plaintiff has not disclosed to this Court
that the defendant appeared during the ex-parte stage and filed a reply
to the application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 by disclosing the stand but the plaintiff has
deliberately not disclosed and filed the said reply in the suit at the time
of grant of ad-interim order. He submits that the plaintiff has
deliberately not filed the documents filed by the defendant in the suit at
Delhi High Court which clearly shows that the trade mark “NEW LIFE”
with device of leaf has been in existence and use much prior to the
incorporation of the plaintiff company and every members of the family
of Dr. Idrees is using the same.
20. Mr. Bachawat submits that the plaintiff has concealed the fact that
every members of the family of Dr. Idrees is using the trade mark and
trade name ” NEW LIFE” on their shops in their individual capacities.
He submits that there are almost 20 shops cum clinics being run by
different family members as separate entities in the city of Bhopal since
last several decades. He submits that the directors of the defendant
have been running their shops-cum-clinic under the trade mark and
trade name “NEW LIFE” at least since the year 2002 to the knowledge of
the plaintiff. He submits that the shops of the plaintiff and the
10
defendant are next to the each other to such extent that the two shops
share the common boundary wall.
21. Mr. Bachawat relied upon the judgment in the case of Satish Khosla
vs. Eli Lilly Ranbaxy Ltd. and Ors. reported in MANU/DE/
0763/1998 and submitted that it was obligatory on the part of the
plaintiff to disclose to the Court that there was an earlier suit filed and
in the suit, the interim order was refused.
22. Mr. Bachawat submits that the trade mark “NEW LIFE” was adopted by
one Late Dr. Idrees who established a Homeopathic clinic by the name
of NEW LIFE HOMOEO CLINIC in 1952. Dr. Mohammad Idrees is the
father of Dr. Mohammad Ilyas, Dr. Mohammed Tariq, Dr. M.M. Siddiqui
and grandfather of Mr. Faizan Mohammad, Mr. Mohammad Zaki, Mrs.
Saba Jabin. Mr. Faizan Mohammad, Mr. Mohammad Zaki and Mrs.
Saba Jabin are directors in the defendant’s Company. Dr. Idrees
practiced Homeopathy for around 53 years in his clinic under the trade
mark NEW LIFE HOMOEO CLINIC with device of leaf, till his death in
the year 2005. Dr. Idrees adopted, established, used and popularized
the trademark “NEW LIFE” with the device of leaf for Homeopathic
clinic and medicines.
23. Mr. Bachawat submits that in the year 1970, Late Dr. Mohammad Ilyas
who was the first son of Late Mohammad Idrees, established a
Homeopathy clinic cum retail shop under the name and style of NEW
LIFE HOMOEO STORE with the device of leaf in order to carry on the
11
legacy of his father Dr. Mohammad Idrees. Dr. Ilyas opened more clinics
within the retail shops being run by the family members of Dr. Ilyas
under the trade mark and trade name “NEW LIFE” with device of leaf.
He submits that in the year 1995, Late Dr. Ilyas established the plaintiff
Company namely New Life Laboratories Private Limited along with his
wife Mrs. Ishrat Begum and his three sons, namely, Dr. Mohammad
Zakariya, Mohammad Zaki and Salman Mohammed as directors of the
Company. In the year 2003, the other sons of Dr. Ilyas namely
Mohammad Zaheer, Mohammed Azam and Faizan Mohammad were
added as directors along with Mrs. Shagufta Begum (wife of Md.
Zakariya) and Mrs. Saima Zaki (wife of Mohammad Zaki).
24. Mr. Bhachawat submits that all the family members of Dr. Idrees had
also opened their retail shops cum clinics including his two other sons,
namely, Dr. Mohammad Tariq and Dr. M.M. Siddiqui and their families
under the trade mark and trade name “NEW LIFE” at various places at
Bhopal either as proprietorship or partnership amongst themselves and
used to sell medicines manufactures by the plaintiff company and other
companies. Mr. Faizan Mohammad who is one of the directors of the
defendant company had also established a retail shop cum clinic by the
name of NEW LIFE MEDICOSE in the year 2002 as its proprietor and
has been doing business of procuring and selling the medicines
manufactured by the plaintiff company. The license to sell homeopathic
medicines issued in favour of Faizan Mohammed in the year 2002 by
the competent authority. He submits that in said license, the competent
12
person to sell the medicines was Mr. Mohammed. Salman who is the
director of the plaintiff. Another director of the defendant company,
namely, Mr. Mohammad Zaki had also established a retail shop cum
clinic under the trade mark NEW LIFE HOMOEOPATHIC STORE since
2017 and has also been doing business with the plaintiff.
25. Mr. Bachawat submits that after the death of Dr. Ilyas in 2013, Dr.
Zakariya being the eldest brother started to create disputes between the
brothers and more particularly against Mr. Mohammad Zaki and Mr.
Faizan Mohammad out of personal jealously. He submits that Mr.
Mohammad Zaki, Mr. Faizan Mohammad and Mrs. Saima Zaki resigned
from the plaintiff company on 31st March, 2018 unconditionally with a
view to establish their own company. The fact that they would establish
a new entity was made clear to all family members including the
existing directors of the plaintiff. He submits that after the resignation
from the plaintiff company, the eight family members of Dr. Ilyas family
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding in order to divide the
family properties. The said Memorandum clearly states that all six
brothers will have equal shares in the plaintiff company and its factory.
26. Mr. Bachawat submits that the defendant company was incorporated
on 22nd January, 2019 bearing the corporate name Dr. Ilyas New Life
Homoeo and Herbals Pvt. Ltd. wherein Mr. Mohammad Zaki, Mr. Faizan
Mohammad, Mrs. Saima Zaki, Mrs. Arshi Faizan, Mrs. Saba Jabin and
Mr. Yaser Quraishi are the directors. In order to continue the family
13
legacy, the defendant adopted the trademarks on
22nd January, 2019 in respect of the manufacturing and marketing of
Pharmaceuticals, medical and veterinary preparations, sanitary
preparations for medical purposes, dietetic food and substances
adapted for medical or veterinary use, food for babies, dietary
supplements for human being and animals, plasters, materials for
dressings, material for stopping teeth, dental wax, disinfectants,
preparations for destroying vermin, fungicides and herbicides.
27. He submits that the plaintiff does not have any registration over the
word mark “NEW LIFE” but only the label The said registration
is for the description of services being Trading, Marketing, Advertising
and Business Management of Pharmaceutical Preparations included in
class 35 and has been registered with a condition. The said fact has not
been disclosed by the plaintiff. The aforesaid registration does not give
exclusivity over the word mark “NEW LIFE” but only on the said label.
28. Mr. Bachawat relied upon the judgment in the case of Dhananjay
Rathi Vs. Shree Vasu Steels Private Limited reported in MANU/ DE/
3191/ 2023 and submitted that when a family name is adapted by
different branches of a family from a common ancestor, one branch of
the family cannot appropriate the same to the exclusion of the others.
The goodwill and reputation in the trade mark shall ensure to the
14
benefit of all the members of the family, unless a particular branch of
the family has been specifically excluded.
29. Mr. Bachawat relied upon the judgment in the case of Prosanta
Kumar Dutta Vs. Prosanta Shilpa Protishtan Pvt. Ltd. reported in
2014 SCC OnLine Cal 19929 and submitted that Dr. Ilyas is the
adaptor of the mark “NEW LIFE”, this does not take away the right of
the defendant from using the same mark. All the directors of the
plaintiff and the defendant are related to Dr. Ilyas.
30. Before filing of the present suit, the plaintiff had initially filed a suit
before the Delhi High Court being CS (COMM) No. 323 of 2023 (NEW
LIFE LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. DR. ILYAS NEW LIFE
HOMOEO & HERBALS PVT. LTD & ANR. in which the plaintiff has
declared Dr. Idrees Family Business Chart and Dr. Mohammed Ilyas
Family Business Chart which are as follows:
DR. IDREES FAMILY BUSINESS CHART
S.N. Proprietor/ Relationship Name of the Year of
Partners Name Firm Establishment
1. Dr. Idress Grandfather Homeopathic
(Expired in 2005) Practitioner
2. Dr. M. Ilyas Father New Life 1970 (Now
(Expired in 2013) Homoeo Closed)
Store
3. Late Mohd. Uncle-1 No Business
Owais in the Name
of New Life
4. Late Mohd. Tahir Uncle-2 No Business
in the Name
of New Life
15
5. Dr. M. Tariq Uncle-3 New Life 1993
Ayurvedic
Store
6. Mohd. Anas Uncle-4 Dr. Idrees
Siddiqui Homoeo
Pharmacy
7. Dr. M. Mugees Uncle-5 New Life 1997
Siddiqui Homoeo Cure
(Clinic)
8. Mohd Almas Uncle-6 No Business
Siddiqui in the Name
of New Life
9. Late Arifa Aunt-1 No Business
Siddiqui in the Name
of New Life
10. Shaheen Aunt-2 No Business
Siddiqui in the Name
of New Life
11. Yasmeen Aunt-3 No Business
Siddiqui in the Name
of New Life
12. M. Tayyab S/o Dr. M. New Life 2022
Tariqu Ayurvedic &
Homoeopathic
StoreDR. M. ILYAS FAMILY BUSINESS CHART
S. No. Name Relationship Establishment Year
1. Dr. M. Zakariya S/o Dr. M. New LIfe Homeo 1988
Ilyas CentreNew LIfe Era 2010
2. M. Zaki S/o Dr. M. German Homoeo 1997
Ilyas RemediesNew LIfe 2017
Homoeopathic
Store
3. Dr. M. Salman S/o Dr. M. New LIfe Medical 1996 (Now
Ilyas Store Closed)
16New Life Homeo 2017
Store
4. M. Faizan S/o Dr. M. New LIfe Medicos 2002
Ilyas (partnership firm
till 2017)New Life 2017
Homoeopaths
(Partnership firm)
5. Dr. M. Zaheer S/o Dr. M. New Life Homoeo 2011
Ilyas Distributor
(partnership firm)New LIfe Medicos 2002-2017
(withdraw) from
partnership)
6. Mohd. Azam S/o. Dr. M. New Life Homoeo 2011
Ilyas PlaceNew Life Homoeo 2011
Distributor
(Partnership
Firm)
7. Saba Zabin D/o Dr. M. New Life Care 2022
(lives in Dubai) Ilyas
8. Saima Zaki W/o M. Zaki New Life 2020
Pharmacy
9. Faiz Zakariya S/o Dr. M. New Life Homoeo 2021
Zakariya World
10. Mrs. Ishrat W/o Dr. M.
Begum IlyasDr. M. Zakariya S/o Dr. M. New Life
Ilyas Educational 1987
Society
Mrs. Shagufta W/o. M.
Begum ZakariyaDr. M. Salman S/o. Dr. M.
IlyasRimsha D/o. Dr. M.
Zakariya Ilyas
17Mohd. Zaid S/o. M.
Zakariya ZakariyaMohd. Faiz S/o. M.
Zakariya Zakariya
11. Mrs. Ishrat W/o Dr. M.
Begum Ilyas New Life Lab.
Pvt. Ltd. 1995
Dr. M. Zakariya S/o M. Ilyas
Mrs Shagufta W/o. M.
Begum Zakariya
Dr. M. Salman S/o Dr. M.
Ilyas
Dr. M. Zaheer S/o Dr. M.
Ilyas
Mohd. Azam S/o Dr. M.
Ilyas
12. M. Zaki S/o Dr. M.
Ilyas Dr. ILyas New
Life Homoeo & 2019
M. Faizan S/o Dr. M. Herbal Pvt. Ltd.
Ilyas
Saba Jabin D/o Dr. M.
Ilyas
Saima Zaki W/o. M. Zaki
Arshi Faizan W/o. M.
Faizan
Yasir Quraishi H/o. Saba
(Lives in Dubai) Jabin
31. Dr. Mohammed Mugees Siddique who is from the branch of Dr. Idrees
has affirmed an Affidavit before the Notary Public on 2nd September,
2024 stating as follows:
18
“AFFIDAVIT
I, Dr. MOHD. MUGEES SIDDIQUI about 52 years,
S/o Late Dr. Mohd. Idrees, R/o 53, Prince Colony,
Idgah Hills, Bhopal do hereby solemnly affirm and
declare as under:
1. That I am one of the sons of Dr. Idrees and I am
uncle of the directors of the plaintiff and defendant
companies. Dr. Ilyas was my elder brother. I am
aware of the earlier case filed in the Delhi High
Court by the plaintiff against the defendant and
have recently become aware of the present suit.
2. I say that my father Dr. Idrees had adopted and
started using the trade mark NEW LIFE HOMOEO
CLINIC in 1952 when he practised homoeopathy
for 52 years till his death. The said clinic continued
for a considerable period of time.
3. That later in the year 1970 my elder brother Dr.
Ilyas opened his clinic under the trade mark NEW
LIFE HOMOEO STORE in Bhopal where he
practised homeopathy. His Registration No. is 5939
as per the State Homoeopathy Council Register.
Thereafter he opened several other Homeopathic
clinics inside the shops being run by the family
members of Dr. Ilyas.
4. I say that I started my homeopathy practise in
the year 1996 with my father under the name New
Life Homoeo Cure. I also opened a new clinic of
homeopathy in the name New Life Homeo Clinic in
the year 2023 in Bhopal.
5. I say that the trade mark and trade name NEW
LIFE has been in use by all the family members of
Dr. Idrees including all his sons namely Dr. Ilyas,
Dr. Md. Tariq and myself Dr. Mohd. Mugees
Siddiqui and their children as partners/proprietors
for running their retail/wholesale shops for the
past few decades. I say that as on date there are
around 20 retail shops cum clinics being run by the
members of the family of Dr. Idrees selling
pharmaceutical medicines without any objection by
anyone in the family under the trade mark and
trade name NEW LIFE. Everyone in the family of
Dr. Idrees is well aware including myself that
Mohd. Faizan is running his shop cum clinic under
19the name NEW LIFE MEDICOS since 2002 and
Mohd. Zaki under the name NEW LIFE
HOMOEOPATHIC STORE since 2017. Some of the
shops are next to each other.
6. I say that the trade mark and trade name NEW
LIFE is a family owned trade mark in which every
member of the family of Dr. Idrees has a right to
use. No one can claim exclusivity over the said
trade mark and trade name NEW LIFE to the
exclusion of other family member(s) and every
member of the family is well aware of this
understanding. There has been no objection
whatsoever in the last several decades between
the family members.
7. I say that I have gone through the plaint and
more particularly paras 5 to 7 of the plaint. I say
that the contents of paras 5 to 7 of the plaint are
absolutely incorrect wherein it has been stated that
Dr. Ilyas permitted his relatives and other sons of
the said Dr. Idrees, i.e. the brothers of Dr. Ilyas
including myself to open outlets/clinics with the
trade mark and trade name “NEW LIFE” on sharing
of profits accruing from such outlets with the Dr.
Ilyas. I say that there has never been such
understanding with Dr. Ilyas and in fact there has
been no such understanding between any of the
family members of Dr. Idrees and there has never
been any sharing of profits as claimed by the
plaintiff Plaintiff is put to challenge to show any
such sharing of profits.
8. I say that I have deposed the present affidavit
out of my free will after carefully going through the
contents of the same thoroughly. The contents of
this affidavit have also been explained to me in
Hindi also. I say that I am of sound mind and have
not been coerced or influenced by anyone to depose
the present affidavit. I say that above is the factual
position with respect to the trade marks and the
business of the family of Dr. Idrees.
9. further say that I am willing to appear
physically/virtually before the Court.
DEPONENT.”
20
32. In the case of Shri Ram Education Trust vs. SRF Foundation and
Ors. reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Del 472 wherein the Delhi High
Court held that:
“15. The Plaintiffs have not been able to
prima facie show that they are entitled to use the
family name to the exclusion of the Defendant. Both
the brother having common lineage, prima facie
have common rights and cannot exclude the other.
It is not disputed that the name SHRI RAM was
first used by Late Sir Shri Ram, who established
educational institutions such as Shriram College of
Commerce, Lady Shriram College for Women,
Shriram Institute for Industrial Research etc. The
name SHRI RAM was adopted by the family in
relation to their respective endeavours.
16. When the name SHRI RAM has
admittedly been first adopted by the grandfather of
the parties, the plaintiffs cannot appropriate the
same to the exclusion of the defendant. The
goodwill and reputation in the trademark adopted
by the grandfather shall enure to the benefit of all
the heirs, unless something to the contrary is
shown so as to exclude the other heirs. One
member of the family cannot, without something
more being shown to the contrary, claim exclusive
ownership of the mark. All the heirs of the person
who first adopted a mark and put the same to use
and earned goodwill and reputation shall, prima
facie, have equal rights to adopt and use the same.
Something more than mere prior adoption by one of
the heirs would have to be shown so as to
extinguish the rights of the other heirs.”
33. In the case of Dhananjay Rathi Vs. Shree Vasu Steels Private
Limited reported in MANU/DE/3191/2023 wherein the Delhi High
Court relied upon the judgment in the case of Shri Ram Education
Trust (supra) and held that :
“25. In Shri Ram Education Trust v. SRF
Foundation & Anr., MANU/DE/0181/2016, a
21Division Bench of this Court had held that when a
family name is adopted by different branches of a
family from a common ancestor, one branch of the
family cannot appropriate the same to the exclusion
of the others. The goodwill and reputation in the
trade mark shall enure to the benefit of all the
members of the family, unless a particular branch
of the family has been specifically excluded. Merely
because one branch of the family was the prior
adopter of the mark, the same would not extinguish
the rights of the other family members. Therefore,
in the present case, the earlier registration of the
mark RATHI in favour of K.L. Rathi would not make
any difference.”
34. In the present case, as per the family business chart of Dr. Idrees and
Dr. Mohammed Ilyas disclosed by the plaintiff (supra), it reveals that
since the life time of the grandfather of the plaintiff, namely, Dr. Idrees
business of Homeopathy is being carried out. The documents disclosed
by the defendant issued by the office of the Tax Collector in the year
1975, the business was in the name of Dr. Idrees and show cause
notices were issued to Dr. Idrees through New Life Clinic, Bhopal.
35. The plaintiff is claiming that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor and
the defendant is not. The mark of the plaintiff is registered being
Registration No. 2477030, in Class 35 with effect from 12th February,
2013 and details of the user are shown as 1st April, 1970. The said
registration has been granted to the plaintiff with the condition that
“THE MARK SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE COLOURS AS SHOWN IN THE
REPRESENTATION ON THE FORM OF THE APPLICATION”.
22
36. The plaintiff on its website www.newlifehomoeopathy.com admitted that
Dr. Idrees to be the founder of the plaintiff which reads as follows:
37. In paragraphs 19 and 20 of the suit filed before the Delhi High Court,
the plaintiff has made the statement that:
“19. That the Plaintiff has been in the course
of trade and business using its said trade name
and/or said trademarks as proprietor thereof
continuously, commercially, openly, exclusively and
to the exclusion of others, in the course of trade
without any interruption or interference from any
corner whatsoever and has built up envious,
enormous and valuable trade, goodwill and
reputation in respect thereof.
20. That the Plaintiff is the proprietor of the
said trademarks/trade name in respect of said
goods/services on account of its prior adoption and
senior, continuous user thereof. The said business
being carried on by the Plaintiff under its said
trade name and/or trademarks is very extensive
one and the goods and the business there under
are sold and distributed widely in Indian
subcontinent. The public at large, homoeopathic
doctors associate said trade name and/or
trademarks with the said goods of plaintiff and
plaintiff has been using the said trade name
and/or trademarks exclusively and to the exclusion
of others. Due to superior quality and high efficacy
said goods and business there under are identified
as exclusively originating from the Plaintiff
23company source and are identified with the
Plaintiff only. The Plaintiff has been faring well far
and wide and has earned comprehensive amount
of goodwill and reputation.”
In paragraph 5 of G.A. (Com) No. 1 of 2024, the plaintiff has made
the following statements:
“5. This led to such medications and the
homeopathic practice of the said Dr. Ilyas becoming
immensely popular under the name and style of“NEW LIFE” and/or the logo or device .
In order to capitalize on such popularity and for the
purposes of further expanding profits and revenue,
the said Dr. Ilyas permitted his relatives, such as,
the other sons of the said Dr. Idress, i.e. his
brothers to open outlets/clinics with the moniker or
trade name “NEW LIFE” and the said house mark, subject to such persons sharing the
profits accruing from such outlets with the said Dr.
Ilyas. This furthered the good name of the said
moniker or trade name/mark and increased the
goodwill associated therewith, which only
increased the secondary meaning that had been
imparted to the said moniker or brand name “NEWLIFE” and the said house mark .”
In paragraph 11 of the affidavit-in-opposition in connection of G.A.
(Com) No. 2 of 2024, the plaintiff has made the following statement:
“While it is true that no family member could
claim exclusively over such mark and name, it is
24true and correct both in fact and in law to say that
such exclusivity can be and is claimed by the
Respondent/Plaintiff, as a consequence of having
registered such mark with the Learned Trade
Marks Registry.”
The plaintiff has made contradictory statements in various
pleadings. The plaintiff has also not disclosed any documents that Dr.
Ilyas permitted his relatives including the other branches of Dr. Idrees
to open outlets and clinics with the name “NEW LIFE” on a profit
sharing basis.
38. The plaintiff has claimed that the plaintiff is using the said mark since
1970. In the present application, the plaintiff has disclosed invoices but
the said invoices are from the year 1999 and there is no document to
show that the plaintiff is using the said mark exclusively since 1970 but
on the other hand, the defendant has disclosed documents to show that
Dr. Idress was running the business in the name of New Life Clinic at
least since 1975.
39. The judgments relied by the plaintiff in the case of Surjeet Book Depot
vs. Surjeet Book Depot (P) Ltd. & Ors. (supra), Sri Narasu’s Coffee
Company Ltd. vs. Narasu‘s Sarathy Industries & Anr. (supra) and
M/s. Power Control Appliances vs. Sumeet Machines Private
Limited (supra) are distinguishable from the facts of the present case.
40. The plaintiff in paragraphs 33, 34 and 35 of GA (Com) No. 1 of 2024
has disclosed about the filing of the case before the Delhi High Court
before filing of the present suit in this Court and withdrawal of the suit
25
but the plaintiff has not disclosed the plaint, written statement filed by
the defendant and the affidavit-in-reply filed by the plaintiff in the suit
filed before the Delhi High Court. The defendant in their application
being G.A. (Com) No. 2 of 2024 has disclosed the said documents and
after going through the said pleadings, this Court finds that the plaintiff
has obtained ad-interim order from this Court by suppressing materials
facts before this Court. In the case of Satish Khosla vs. Eli Lilly
Ranbaxy Ltd. and Others reported in MANU/DE/0763/1998, the
Delhi High Court held that:
“14. Was it not obligatory on the part of the
respondent to disclose to the Court that in an
earlier suit filed by it, the Court had not granted
any stay in its favor and if on such a disclosure
having been made the Court still granted stay in
favor of the respondent it could be said that the
respondent had not concealed any material fact
from the Court? But not mentioning anything about
the Court having not granted any stay in similar
circumstances in favor of the respondent in the
earlier suit, it appears to us that the respondent
had not only concealed material facts from the
Court but had also tried to over reach the Court.
Being unsuccessful in obtaining stay in Suit
No.3064/96, it was not permissible to the
respondent to file the subsequent suit and seek the
same relief which had not been granted to it in the
earlier suit.”
41. This Court finds that the plaintiff has obtained an ad-interim order by
suppressing materials facts and on completion of pleadings, this Court
finds that the plaintiff has not made out any prima facie case and
balance of convenience and in convenience in favour of the plaintiff.
26
42. Considering the above, the interim order granted on 19th August, 2024
which is extended from time to time is hereby vacated.
43. G.A. (Com) No. 1 of 2024 is dismissed and G.A. (Com) No. 2 of 2024
is allowed.
(Krishna Rao, J.)
Later :
After the order passed by this Court, Counsel for the plaintiff prays
for stay of operation of the order. Counsel for the defendant raised
objection.
Considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the parties.
Prayer for stay is refused.
(Krishna Rao, J.)
[ad_1]
Source link