On September 13, 2024, the Delhi Tall Court rejected a suit recorded by VIP Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. against Rhydburg Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The suit, which was recorded prior this year, looked for to address trademark encroachment, copyright infringement, and passing off, among other claims. Equity Saurabh Banerjee conveyed the judgment, eventually dismissing the suit beneath Arrange VII Run the show 11 of the Respectful Method Code (CPC), finding it banished by law.
Case Background
VIP Pharmaceuticals and Rhydburg Pharmaceuticals had been involved in case for a few a long time over the utilize of trademarks and exchange dress for their particular pharmaceutical items. At first, VIP Pharmaceuticals recorded a counterclaim in 2019, charging that Rhydburg was encroaching on its trademark and damaging its rights. Be that as it may, after challenging the case for over three a long time, VIP Pharmaceuticals pulled back its counterclaim on December 19, 2022, without looking for the court's authorization to record a new suit.
Taking after this, VIP Pharmaceuticals started a modern suit in February 2023, claiming that the prior counterclaim needed comprehensive pleadings and supplications. This new suit sought to cover issues related to the infringement of its trademark "DICLO-M," violations of copyright, trade dress, and additional claims of damages.
Defendant's Standpoint
Rhydburg Pharmaceuticals, through its counsel, argued that the present suit was essentially a repetition of the earlier counterclaim filed in the Rohini District Court. The defendant submitted that VIP Pharmaceuticals’ failure to seek permission from the district court when withdrawing the original counterclaim barred it from filing a new suit under Order XXIII Rule 1(4) and Section 12 of the CPC. They cited multiple Supreme Court judgments, including Pramod Kumar vs. Zalak Singh (2019), which emphasize that once a plaintiff abandons a suit or a claim without permission, they are barred from bringing a fresh suit on the same cause of action.
Plaintiff's Arguments
VIP Pharmaceuticals defended its decision to withdraw the earlier counterclaim, stating that the initial filing lacked comprehensive reliefs, including damages and claims related to trade dress violations. The business claimed that the current lawsuit was founded on a recurrent cause of action and had a wider purview. Additionally, the plaintiff claimed that each instance of infringement results in a new cause of action, allowing for the filing of a new lawsuit.
Court's Findings
Nonetheless, the Delhi High Court did not find the plaintiff's case persuasive. The cause of action in both the current lawsuit and the prior counterclaim, according to Justice Banerjee, dates back to July 2019, the month VIP Pharmaceuticals allegedly learned of Rhydburg's infringement.The court held that the minor additions made by the plaintiff in the new suit did not alter the fundamental nature of the dispute, which involved the same parties, issues, and reliefs. Moreover, the court emphasized that under Order XXIII Rule 1(4) of the CPC, a party withdrawing a claim without permission cannot bring a fresh suit on the same subject matter. The court also cited the earlier order of the district court, which had explicitly rejected VIP Pharmaceuticals' request for a modification to include a liberty to file a fresh suit.
Conclusion
In light of the over discoveries, the Delhi Tall Court rejected the suit, holding that it was banned by the arrangements of the CPC. The court ruled that the offended party seem not be allowed to relitigate the same issues simply by endeavoring to grow the scope of the initial claim. This judgment underscores the significance of looking for fitting consents when pulling back a suit or counterclaim, as coming up short to do so can anticipate future case on the same cause of activity.
Click Here to: Download/View Related File
TAGS: trademark infringement copyright violation passing off Delhi High Court withdrawal of suit Order VII Rule 11 Order XXIII Rule 1(4) Civil Procedure Code recurring cause of action
