1. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited vs Manu Kosuri And Another,
Delhi High Court 2001 (58) DRJ 241
2. The Case This case revolves around the concept of trademark
infringement in law. DR. REDDY'S (hereinafter referred to as DRD)
is a company which was established in the year 1984 for research
and development activity in the field of medicine and has grown
overtime into a large pharmaceutical organization. The company has
a strong distribution network in India and overseas and also has
various subsidiaries all around the world across many countries.
DRD is the original registered owner of the trademark 'DR. REDDY'S'
and has been using the trademark along with its subsidiary
companies for an extensively long time.
3. However at the time of filing the suit, the application for
registration of trademark DR. REDDY'S was pending and the company
had a registered domain name "drreddys.com". Mr. Manu Kosuri and
others(hereinafter referred to as MK) registered a domain name
'drreddyslab.com' for operating business on the internet. DRD filed
for a suit seeking permanent injunction restraining MK from using
the domain name 'drreddyslab.com' or any other domain name which is
similar or identical to DRDs trademark DR. REDDY'S for internet
related services or any other business as it may lead to confusion
among the people, thereby resulting in
4. DRD contended that the word DR. REDDY'S was an essential
feature in carrying out its business operations in the country and
oversees. And as result of MKs domain name it might appear to
others around that the world that it is carrying out the business
under the authorization of DRD. It further demanded for
compensation to be paid by MK for using the challenged domain name
along with profits made by the latter arising from the same.
5. Accordingly, MK was restrained by a permanent injunction
from registering a domain name or operating any business on the
internet and elsewhere under the domain name 'drreddyslab.com' or
any other domain name which is identical and similar to DRD's
trademark 'DR. REDDY'S'. And also were ordered to pay the cost of
suit to DRD and other profits that they made as a result of using
the challenged domain name.
6. The Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of
Justice N Nandi ruled that the DRD's trademark is 'DR. REDDY'S' and
MK's domain name is 'drreddyslab.com'. And the former is the
original registered owner of the trademark 'DR. REDDY'S' by virtue
of its continuous and extensive use, advertising and the reputation
and goodwill it enjoys as result of being in existence for a
considerable amount of time. Further the court stated that since
the function of a domain name is akin to a trade mark on the
Internet it is of vital importance in e- commerce..
7. Therefore, on account of the increasing worldwide use of the
internet and its implications on trade, the potential for confusion
or deception being caused on account of adopting the challenged
domain name by MK may in all likelihood cause damage to DRDs
business, goodwill and reputation. Also the court held that it is a
settled legal position that when a company does business under a
name which is sufficiently close to the name under which another
company has been carrying out its business transactions, the public
at large is likely to be misled that the business of
8. Accordingly, MK was restrained by a permanent injunction
from registering a domain name or operating any business on the
internet and elsewhere under the domain name 'drreddyslab.com' or
any other domain name which is identical and similar to DRD's
trademark 'DR. REDDY'S'. And also were ordered to pay the cost of
suit to DRD and other profits that they made as a result of using
the challenged domain name.
9. The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 11. Prohibition of
registration of certain marks. A mark (a) the use of which would be
likely to deceive or cause confusion 12. Prohibition of
registration of identical or deceptively similar trade marks. (1) A
mark identical or deceptively, similar to a trade mark actually
registered in respect of the same description.
10. The court held that it is a settled legal position that
when a company does business under a name which is sufficiently
close to the name under which another company has been carrying out
its business transactions, the public at large is likely to be
misled that the business of the former is the business of the
latter.