IP Case Law › Trade Marks › Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Emsure Pharmaceutical Priv…
Relevant Acts and provisions
Provisions considered: Trade Marks Act, 1999 (infringement; passing off); Commercial Courts Act, 2015
Brief facts
Emcure sued Emsure Pharmaceutical for using EMSURE as its mark and name for pharmaceutical business. The defendant did not contest and the suit proceeded ex parte.
Issues before the Court
Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree of permanent injunction and costs.
Court's findings
The Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and awarded costs under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 read with the IPD Rules, 2022.
Decision
Suit decreed with permanent injunction against use of EMSURE; plaintiff to file a bill of costs by 28 February 2026 for computation by the Taxing Officer; decree sheet to be drawn.
Key legal principle / ratio
Where a defendant adopts a name and mark closely resembling a pharmaceutical company's established mark and does not contest the suit, a permanent injunction and actual costs may be decreed.
Important paragraph references
Paras 18-20.
Important: This case note is a research summary only. It must be verified against the full judgment by a qualified lawyer, advocate or patent/trade mark attorney before any reliance. Do not rely on it as legal advice; Ragulika IP accepts no responsibility for its accuracy or for any action taken on it.
Keywords
Actual Costs EMCURE EMSURE Ex Parte Decree Permanent Injunction Pharmaceutical Trade Marks
Read the judgment
More Trade Marks judgments
Trade Marks
Abhimanyu Prakash & Ors. v. Ferrero S.p.A. & Ors.
Seized infringing articles bearing an imitation of a protected trade dress should be destroyed rather than released for other use.
AppealCounterfeit GoodsDestruction of Seized GoodsJar ShapeTrade MarksAcqua Minerals Limited v. Pramod Borse & Anr.
Registration of a domain name identical or deceptively similar to another's well-known trade mark, by a person having no legitimate connection with that mark and who seeks to profit from its transfer, amounts to bad faith cybersqu…
Bad Faith AdoptionCybersquattingDomain NamesPassing OffTrade MarksADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks
Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 proscribes registration only where a mark is devoid of distinctive character, that is, incapable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of another; it does not…
Absolute Grounds for RefusalArbitrary MarkDistinctivenessNon-speaking Order