1 s3959-03 vai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.3959 OF 2003 Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited ....Plaintiff V/s. Indkus Biotech (P) Ltd. ....Defendant Mr.Dhiraj Mehtre i/b Desai & Diwanji for the Plaintiff. Mr.Hiren Kamod i/b Mr.H.W. Kane for the Defendant. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 9TH AUGUST, 2011. P.C. :- 1. This is an action for infringement of copyright and for passing off. The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the mark “REVITAL” under class 5. The defendant has used the mark “RABITAL”.The marks are phonetically and visually similar. The substitution of the letters “EV” with the letters “AB” makes no difference. 2. The defendant had also slavishly imitated on its label the artistic work contained in the plaintiff’s label. The background of both the labels is a mustard colour. The word marks are posed similarly in both the labels. The word marks are in a similar font, similar size and against the similar maroon background. The background against which 2 s3959-03 the defendant’s word mark is used is rectangular in shape, whereas the plaintiff’s word though against a maroon background which is curved at the end. The same makes no difference. There is also a device of four capsules in both the labels similarly placed. Each of the capsules has a similar red line around it. 3. The defendant is absent. There is no written statement. This is despite the fact that interlocutory orders have been passed. 4. The plaintiff has claimed only nominal damages in the sum of Rs.51,000/-. I am inclined to draw an adverse inference against the defendant on account of their having not filing the written statement knowing that if its records had been produced, the plaintiff’s case even regarding damages, would have been established. In the circumstances, the plaintiff has established its case. 5. The suit is therefore decreed in terms of prayers (a) to (d) and (k). Costs to be quantified as per rules. Refund, if any, as per rules.