Single-judge order against Patanjali set aside 

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has set aside a single judge order that restrained Patanjali Ayurved from using the trademark name ‘Coronil’ for its immunity booster product. The court in its order observed that there was no prima facie case of trademark infringement made out against Patanjali Ayurved and Arudra Engineering Private limited did not claim a monopoly over the word ‘Coronil’ by itself.

The Division Bench comprising Justices R Subbiah and C Saravanan set aside Justice Karthikeyan’s August 6 injunction order and consequently also set aside the `10 lakh fine imposed on the defendants.
The issue pertains to Arudra Engineering Private Limited registering a trademark for ‘CORONIL-92 B’ as an acid inhibitor product for industrial cleaning and chemical preparations for industrial use in June 1993. The company filed a trademark infringement suit against Patanjali Ayurved for using the term in its immunity booster product, launched amid the pandemic last year.

The bench in the appeal moved by Patanjali against the single judge order observed, “In the instant case, registration has been obtained by the plaintiff (Arudra) over the label with the words and alpha numeral Coronil 92B and Coronil 213 SPL as a composite mark and not as a word for ‘Coronil’ as envisaged under Section 15 (of the Trade Marks Act).”

The bench also said, “The label marks registered by Arudra are composite marks of a common word ‘coronil’ and the alpha numerals namely ‘92B’ and ‘213 SPL’ respectively. On the other hand, the defendants used the word ‘Coronil’ as a word mark simpliciter.” “.... though ‘coronil’ was an invented word, Arudra chose not to apply for the trademark registration of the word ‘coronil’. Arudra’s registration was compromised by Arudra itself, when it was satisfied with registration of the composite labels. There was a defect in its birth which was never cured over a period of last 27 years,” observed the bench. 

Clarifying the usage of the word in its 78-page order, the bench said, “The registration of a trademark does not confer any exclusive right or monopoly over a part of the trademark so registered.....If Arudra held an independent registration for the word ‘Coronil’, it can be said that a suit or an action for infringement of trademark under Section 29(4) of the Trade Mark Act, 1999 would be maintainable.....

Mere registration of a composite mark, consisting several features namely a device, a word and disclaimed alpha numerals 92 B and 213 SPL cannot give any right to file a suit for infringement under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. For the purpose of Section 29 (4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, Arudra cannot claim monopoly over the word ‘Coronil’ as it was registered as a part of a composite mark.”

The court setting aside the single judge order said “.... prima facie view is that the use of the word ‘Coronil’ in the process of manufacture and sale of a tablet as an immunity booster, will not be detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the registered trademark of Arudra.... the plaintiff (Arudra) has not made out a case for interference by granting an interim injunction in their favour.” The court also said that the primary suit between Arudra Engineering and Patanjali over the trademark rights for ‘Coronil’ should be disposed of in a time-bound manner by the Commercial Division of the HC.