A Division Bench of the Madras High Court has issued an interim stay on the single Bench order which had restrained Patanjali Ayurved and the Divya Yog Mandir Trust from using the word "Coronil" in relation to its immunity-boosting products. .[Breaking] Patanjali injuncted from using "Coronil", Madras HC slaps Rs 10 lakhs as costs; says company is exploiting fear amid COVID-19.A Bench of Justices R Subbiah and C Saravanan passed the order on an appeal moved by Patanjali and the Divya Yog Mandir Trust. .The Court has suspended the injunction and allowed Patanjali to use "Coronil" for a two-week period. The Court is expected to take up the matter for final hearing after that. .The August 6 order under challenge was passed by Justice CV Karthikeyan while allowing a trademark infringement suit by Chennai-based Arudra Engineering Private Limited. Arudra had registered the trademark for 'CORONIL-92 B' as an Acid inhibitor product for industrial cleaning and chemical preparations for industrial use in June 1993. .While ruling in favour of Arudra in the trademark suit, the Single Judge had also slapped a Rs 10 lakh fine on Patanjali and the Divya Yog Mandir Trust for "exploiting the fear and panic among the general public by projecting a cure for the Coronavirus.".Appearing for Patanjali in its appeal today, Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram, briefed by Advocate P Giridharan, argued that the Single Judge had erred in invoking Section 29 (4) of the Trademark Act to restrain Patanjali from using the mark "Coronil." Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran appeared for the Divya Yog Mandir Trust. .Counsels from Athena Legal led by Partner Simranjeet Singh acted for both Patanjali and Divya Yog Mandir Trust along with Advocate P Giridharan and the Senior Counsels..The arguments made today for Patanjali and the Divya Yog Mandir Trust defending the use of the word "Coronil" in relation to their products include the following:There is no likelihood for any confusion between consumers when it comes to the products manufactured and sold by Patanjali as "Divya Coronil Tablets" and the goods sold by Arudra for heavy machinery companies. “Coronil” is a generic name. There are 191 companies using some derivative of the “corona” term in their name. Six companies are engaged in making tablets. The word “corona” and its derivatives are directly linked to the COVID-19/ the coronavirus pandemic. If anyone thinks of corona, it would tie to the pandemic today. There is, therefore, a due cause in Patanjali’s adoption of the word “coronil”.The Trademark held by Arudra is a "label mark" which comprises of several elements. Exclusive rights cannot be claimed over one element (i.e. the word "Coronil")Arudra has not shown how their reputation would be affected by Patanjali's use of the word "coronil" in relation to their products. There is no damage or irreparable harship caused. There is no unfair advantage obtained by Patanjali in doing so. Patanjali is not seeking to monopolise the use of the word "Coronil", it is Arudra that is seeking such exclusive rights. As such, it is on Arudra to prove that their reputation has been affected by the adoption of "Coronil" by another user.Patanjali has been adopting the use of "coronil" for months It has applied for an obtained permissions, including the licence to manufacure, using this name. .Appearing for Arudra, however, Advocate PR Raman asserted that Arudra need not prove that there would be confusion between the products. .Given its registered trademark, Raman argued that Arudra was entitled to claim rights over the mark "Coronil." To buttress his arguments Raman relied on a number of cases, including the Single Judge order of August 6.. .In response to the queries posed by the Bench, Raman further responded that there may be no objection, if the mark "Divya" Coronil Tablet was adopted by Patanjali. He added that the issue was that Patanjali had applied for the mark "coronil.".He asserted that Arudra's reputation had been damaged owing to Patanjali's use of "Coronil" to mislead the public over a projected coronavirus cure. .After hearing submissions, the Bench today said that it would post the matter for final hearing. In the meanwhile, the challenged order would remain suspended for two weeks. .The Court ordered the stay despite strong objections by Raman that Arudra's suit may be rendered infructuous if Patanjali is allowed to sell its products using the name "Coronil."
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court has issued an interim stay on the single Bench order which had restrained Patanjali Ayurved and the Divya Yog Mandir Trust from using the word "Coronil" in relation to its immunity-boosting products. .[Breaking] Patanjali injuncted from using "Coronil", Madras HC slaps Rs 10 lakhs as costs; says company is exploiting fear amid COVID-19.A Bench of Justices R Subbiah and C Saravanan passed the order on an appeal moved by Patanjali and the Divya Yog Mandir Trust. .The Court has suspended the injunction and allowed Patanjali to use "Coronil" for a two-week period. The Court is expected to take up the matter for final hearing after that. .The August 6 order under challenge was passed by Justice CV Karthikeyan while allowing a trademark infringement suit by Chennai-based Arudra Engineering Private Limited. Arudra had registered the trademark for 'CORONIL-92 B' as an Acid inhibitor product for industrial cleaning and chemical preparations for industrial use in June 1993. .While ruling in favour of Arudra in the trademark suit, the Single Judge had also slapped a Rs 10 lakh fine on Patanjali and the Divya Yog Mandir Trust for "exploiting the fear and panic among the general public by projecting a cure for the Coronavirus.".Appearing for Patanjali in its appeal today, Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram, briefed by Advocate P Giridharan, argued that the Single Judge had erred in invoking Section 29 (4) of the Trademark Act to restrain Patanjali from using the mark "Coronil." Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran appeared for the Divya Yog Mandir Trust. .Counsels from Athena Legal led by Partner Simranjeet Singh acted for both Patanjali and Divya Yog Mandir Trust along with Advocate P Giridharan and the Senior Counsels..The arguments made today for Patanjali and the Divya Yog Mandir Trust defending the use of the word "Coronil" in relation to their products include the following:There is no likelihood for any confusion between consumers when it comes to the products manufactured and sold by Patanjali as "Divya Coronil Tablets" and the goods sold by Arudra for heavy machinery companies. “Coronil” is a generic name. There are 191 companies using some derivative of the “corona” term in their name. Six companies are engaged in making tablets. The word “corona” and its derivatives are directly linked to the COVID-19/ the coronavirus pandemic. If anyone thinks of corona, it would tie to the pandemic today. There is, therefore, a due cause in Patanjali’s adoption of the word “coronil”.The Trademark held by Arudra is a "label mark" which comprises of several elements. Exclusive rights cannot be claimed over one element (i.e. the word "Coronil")Arudra has not shown how their reputation would be affected by Patanjali's use of the word "coronil" in relation to their products. There is no damage or irreparable harship caused. There is no unfair advantage obtained by Patanjali in doing so. Patanjali is not seeking to monopolise the use of the word "Coronil", it is Arudra that is seeking such exclusive rights. As such, it is on Arudra to prove that their reputation has been affected by the adoption of "Coronil" by another user.Patanjali has been adopting the use of "coronil" for months It has applied for an obtained permissions, including the licence to manufacure, using this name. .Appearing for Arudra, however, Advocate PR Raman asserted that Arudra need not prove that there would be confusion between the products. .Given its registered trademark, Raman argued that Arudra was entitled to claim rights over the mark "Coronil." To buttress his arguments Raman relied on a number of cases, including the Single Judge order of August 6.. .In response to the queries posed by the Bench, Raman further responded that there may be no objection, if the mark "Divya" Coronil Tablet was adopted by Patanjali. He added that the issue was that Patanjali had applied for the mark "coronil.".He asserted that Arudra's reputation had been damaged owing to Patanjali's use of "Coronil" to mislead the public over a projected coronavirus cure. .After hearing submissions, the Bench today said that it would post the matter for final hearing. In the meanwhile, the challenged order would remain suspended for two weeks. .The Court ordered the stay despite strong objections by Raman that Arudra's suit may be rendered infructuous if Patanjali is allowed to sell its products using the name "Coronil."
