1 nms-2769-s-2426-08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION jmi NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2769 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 2426 OF 2008. Hab Pharmaceuticals & Research Limited. ..Plaintiff. vs. Saviour Biotech Private Limited & Anr. ..Defendants. .... Mr. Alankar A. Kirpekar, for Plaintiff. Mr. Himanshu W. Kane, a/w. Ms. Mushraf Bukhari, for Defendant No.2. .... CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 10TH JANUARY 2011. P.C. By the present Suit, the Plaintiff seeks to restrain the Defendants, its Directors, partners, proprietors, servants, agents, exporters, importers, stockists, etc. by an order of perpetual injunction of this Court in any manner using in relation to any medicinal and pharmaceutical preparation, the impugned mark ‘Vega 100’ so as to infringe the Plaintiff’s trade marks ‘Vega 100’ and/or ‘Vegah 100’. 2. An application for ex-parte ad-interim reliefs was made on 7th August 2008. Accordingly, the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, was appointed as Receiver to visit the premises of the Plaintiff and to seize the impugned goods. The Court Receiver complied with the said order and after seizing the impugned goods and making inventory of the same has handed over the same to the Defendant No.1 with an undertaking to produce the same as and when the Defendant No.1 is called upon to do so. According to the 2 nms-2769-s-2426-08 Plaintiff since the Defendant No.1 took a stand that the Defendant No.1 was using the impugned mark under a license given to him by the Defendant No.2, who are the owners of the mark, the Plaintiff by an amendment to the Plaint joined the Defendant No.2 to the present Suit. However, the learned Advocate appearing for the Plaintiff submits that since Defendant No.2 claims to be the owner of the registered trademark ‘Vega’ and since independent proceedings are being pursued by the Plaintiff against the Defendant No.2, the Plaintiff is not pressing for any reliefs against the Defendant No.2. 3. The learned Advocate appearing for the Defendant No.2 submits that it is true that the Defendant No.1 was using the impugned marks under a license from the Defendant No.2. However, the Defendant No.1 is no longer using the impugned marks since the license issued in favour of the Defendant No.1 by the Defendant No.2 has come to an end. The learned Advocate appearing for the Plaintiff states that the Plaintiff has no privity with the Defendant No. 1. In view thereof, the Plaintiff is not pressing for any reliefs against the Defendant No.1. However, since the goods which the Court Receiver has seized are lying in the premises of the Defendant No.1, the Court Receiver is directed to take possession of the said goods and hand over the same to the Plaintiff who shall keep the same in their safe custody and produce the same as and when called upon by this Court to do so. 4. The Notice of Motion is accordingly, disposed of with a clarification that the present order shall not in any way prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties. [ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]