IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
  
  CS(OS) 3356/2014
  
  NOVARTIS A.G. and ANR ..... Plaintiffs
  
  Through Mr.Gopal Subramanium, Sr.Adv.
  
  with Mr.Hemant Singh, Ms.Mamta R. Jha and Mr.Manish K. Mishra, Advs.
  
  
  
versus
  
  
  
  CIPLA LTD ..... Defendant
  
  Through Mrs.Prathiba M. Singh, Sr.Adv. with
  
  Ms.Bitika Sharma, Ms.Anusuya
  
  Nigam and Mr.Vihan Dang, Advs.
  
  CORAM:
  
   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
  
  
  
   O R D E R
  
   17.11.2014
  
  
  
  CS(OS) No.3356/2014, I.A. No.21704/2014 (u/o XXXIX R.1 and 2 CPC) and
  
  I.A. No.21705/2014 (u/o XXVI R.9 CPC)
  
  
  
  The defendant is stated to have filed the affidavit in terms of the
  order dated 10th November, 2014. However, the same is not on the record.
  Counsel to approach the Registry and shall see that the same is placed on
  the record.
  
  Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs
  submits that in the affidavit, though the defendant has disclosed the
  total stock of the impugned trademark UNIBREZ, i.e. 23837 strips (each
  has 10 tablets) but the batch number, the date of manufacturing and other
  requisite details are not mentioned.
  
  Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant agrees
  to file an additional affidavit which would contain the full details in
  this regard within one week, with an advance copy of the same to the
  plaintiffs. Let the same be filed within one week.
  
  Learned Senior counsel has also informed the Court that the
  defendant has proposed to adopt the trademark INDAFLO in place of earlier
  trademark used which is the subject matter of the present suit and the
  defendant has no objection if a decree for permanent injunction is passed
  in terms of paras 23(i) and (ii) of the plaint.
  
  Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs says
  that the present suit be disposed of as settled between the parties,
  however, the plaintiffs be not precluded to take the action against the
  same very defendant with regard to patent infringement. In support of
  his submission, learned counsel for the plaintiffs has also filed an
  affidavit today in Court itself. The Court does not want to make any
  comments on this aspect. Remedy, if available as against the defendant,
  the same has to be decided on merit. The question of estoppal does not
  arise in view of the compromise arrived at in the trademark matter.
  
  In view of the aforesaid statement made on behalf of the defendant,
  the decree for permanent injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiffs
  and against the defendant. Paras 23(i) and (ii) of the plaint are
  reproduced here as under:-
  
  ?(i) A decree for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, its
  directors, assignees in business, its distributors, dealers, stockists,
  retailers, and agents from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale,
  advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in medicinal preparations
  under the impugned trade mark UNIBREZ or any other trade mark as may be
  deceptively similar to the Plaintiff?s trade mark(s) ONBREZ amounting to
  infringement and dilution of registered trade mark of the Plaintiff No.1;
  
  
  
  (ii) a decree for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, its
  
  directors, proprietor or partners as the case may be, its assignees in business, its distributors, dealers, stockists, retailers, servants and
  agents from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising,
  directly or indirectly dealing in medicinal preparations under the
  impugned trade mark UNIBREZ or any other trade mark as may be deceptively
  similar with the Plaintiff?s trade mark ONBREZ which may be likely to
  cause confusion and/or deception amounting to passing off and unfair
  competition.?
  
  
  
  The rest of the prayers is not pressed by the plaintiffs. Decree be
  drawn accordingly. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
  
  Dasti.
  
  
  
   MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
  
  NOVEMBER 17, 2014/ka
  
  $ 42