Author: Amith Krishnan

Case in Point: Sun Pharma Ltd vs. DWD Pharma Ltd

Case in Point is a new series where we discuss case laws and explain certain basic concepts which may be useful to all practitioners and students alike. The first part of this series focusses on the recent judgment of the Delhi High Court in Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v. DWD Pharmaceuticals Ltd[1], wherein the Delhi High Court in an Order 39 Rule 4 application preferred by the Defendant, had imposed costs on the Plaintiff for suppression of material facts but at the same time confirmed the ad-interim ex-parte order of injunction granted to the Plaintiff. The judgment is succinctly put, merely 24 pages but provides an opportunity to revisit certain concepts. Brief Facts: The Plaintiff claimed that the defendants mark ‘FOLZEST’ infringed its mark ‘FORZEST’. The Delhi High Court on 19.05.2022 had granted an ad-interim ex-parte order from infringing the Plaintiff’s mark. Thereafter the Defendant preferred an application under Order…

Read More

Recent Discussions

Interpretation of Section 3(i) of the Indian Patent Act, 1970 in the Context of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing
October 13, 2023

Introduction The advent of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) has revolutionized prenatal diagnostics, enabling expectant parents to assess the genetic health of the fetus…

Recent Discussions

Branded Medicines vs. Generic Medicines: The Role of Patents
September 8, 2023

In the pharmaceutical industry, the distinction between branded and generic medicines is an essential one. Understanding this distinction is crucial not just for…