"The similarity in the name is obvious", Madras High Court restrains Patanjali from using Trademark "CORONIL" until July 30 [Read Order]

The Madras High Court on Friday passed an interim injunction order restraining the use of the mark "Coronil" in relation to the controversial drug promoted by Baba Ramdev's Patanjali Ayurved as an immunity-booster for COVID-19 management (M/s.Arudra Engineering Private Limited v. M/s.Pathanjali Ayurved Limited). .Justice CV Karthikeyan issued the interim injunction upon finding that Chennai-based Arudra Engineering Private Limited had registered the trademark for 'CORONIL-92 B' as an Acid inhibitor product for industrial cleaning and chemical preparations for industrial use, as early as June 1993..The Court was further told that the trademark registration has since been renewed diligently and that it is subsisting till date..The Judge also noted that "The list of customer companies shows that huge industrial units like BHEL, NTPC Limited, Reliance industrial Ltd., Indian Oil Corporation and other such companies are the clients of the plaintiff.".On the other hand, it was pointed out that Patanjali's use of the mark "Coronil" was more recent and in relation to a drug whose use is still under debate. .The Court recorded Arudra's submissions that the "Coronil" drug was banned in Maharashtra, while its effectiveness was still under scrutiny in Uttarakhand. Several complaints have also been made against Patanjali, the plaintiff added. .[CORONIL] Delhi Court dismisses plea seeking registration of FIR against Ramdev, Patanjali to avoid multiple FIRs.Justice Karthikeyan ultimately granted the plea for interim injunction, remarking that "the similarity in the name is obvious. The name used by the defendant is the same. The spelling is same.".The Court proceeded to restrain Patanjali from using the mark "Coronil" until July 30, reasoning, ."It is seen that the plaintiff has a registered trademark Coronil and the registration is still subsists. Once the plaintiff has a registered trademark, protection has to be given from infringement. The law is clear on that aspect. The defendant has also claimed that he is going to market his product in the same name 'Coronil'. The defendant can also market their product, but they have to use a different name. They cannot infringe upon the right accrued to the plaintiff owing to the registration of the trademark Coronil as early as 1993, which registration still subsists.".Arudra was represented by Senior Counsel PR Raman for Advocate C Seethapathy along with Advocates A Umasankar, Gautam S Raman and Gokul Sundar KR. .Read the order: