Introduction:

In a recent legal battle before the Delhi High Court, Glaxo Group Limited, a prominent biopharma company, confronted Rajiv Mukul and another defendant for trademark infringement. The case revolved around Glaxo’s trademarks for vaccines like ‘Zentel’, ‘Otrivin’, and ‘Ambirix’, which the defendants allegedly imitated with marks such as ‘Sontel’, ‘Etoriwin’, and ‘Aribrix’. After securing a decree from the High Court for a permanent injunction against the defendants, Glaxo filed an execution petition when the defendants continued to violate the injunction, notably with products similar to Glaxo’s ‘Betnesol’ marketed under ‘Betnevin’.

Arguments:

Glaxo argued that despite the decree and compromise reached with the defendants, they persistently infringed on Glaxo’s trademarks. The plaintiff contended that the defendants’ actions were deliberate attempts to mislead consumers by using marks closely resembling Glaxo’s registered trademarks.

The defendants countered that the execution petition overstepped the terms of the decree and effectively re-opened the matter of infringement, which they argued should be addressed through a new lawsuit as per legal precedents.

Court’s Judgment:

The Delhi High Court, citing precedents such as Essco Sanitations v. Mascot Industries and Chittoori Subbanna v. Kudappa Subbanna, ruled in favor of Glaxo. The court emphasized that an executing court has the authority to assess whether the defendants’ products and packaging indeed infringed upon Glaxo’s trademarks, despite the defendants’ objections. The High Court concluded that the defendants’ use of ‘Betnevin’ and similar packaging constituted trademark infringement, thereby upholding the execution petition filed by Glaxo Group Limited.