Case Commentary: Arudra Engineers Private Limited V. Pathanjali Ayurved Limited

Abstract

The case of Arudra Engineers Private Limited v. Pathanjali Ayurved Limited is one of the many intellectual property infringement cases that were filed by pharmaceutical companies during the covid pandemic as many new medicinal drugs and vaccines were being produced all over the country and there was a need to protect the intellectual property rights so that there was no unfair advantage to any of the manufacturers and this was also important in order to avoid public confusion. The plaintiff in this case, Arudra Chemicals had filed an application for interim relief for injunction against the defendant Pathanjali Ayurved Limited in the High Court of Madras for the infringement of the plaintiff’s trademark ‘Coronil-92B and Coronil-213 SPL’ which was registered in 1993 and then was renewed and had protection until 2027. The single bench of the High Court of Madras passed an injunction order against the defendant and the defendant was restrained from using the registered trademark “Coronil” or any other deceptive variation for its pharmaceutical product till 30th July, 2020. This order was passed on 17th July, 2020[1] which was challenged by the defendant in the instant case and the Division bench of the Madras High Court set aside the order of the Single judge bench and passed the judgment in favour of Pathanjali Ayurved and so the injunction order was set aside.

This case commentary provides a brief of the facts and the arguments raised by both the parties and the judgment of the Madras High Court followed by an analysis of the case and comparing it to the previous judgment of the court and why the order was set aside.