1. 1. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited vs Manu Kosuri And Another, Delhi High Court 2001 (58) DRJ 241
2. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.