Wockhardt Limited v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr.
Background
Torrent Pharmaceuticals sued Wockhardt for passing off, claiming Wockhardt's drug "CHYMTRAL" was deceptively similar to its own established trademarks "CHYMORAL" and "CHYMORAL FORTE." The trial (Single) Judge refused an interim injunction, finding Torrent had not proved misrepresentation and that the long co-existence of both products and Torrent's inaction suggested acquiescence. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court reversed this, holding that all three legal tests for passing off (reputation, misrepresentation, and likelihood of injury) were satisfied, and granted the injunction Torrent sought, which Wockhardt then challenged before the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that an appellate court can interfere with a trial judge's discretionary injunction order only where the judge ignored settled legal principles, and found the Division Bench had correctly identified such errors: reputation was established by substantial sales figures, and settled law holds that fraudulent intent is not required to prove misrepresentation in a passing-off action. The Court rejected Wockhardt's acquiescence defence, agreeing that mere delay without a "positive act" encouraging the rival's conduct does not amount to acquiescence. It also noted that Wockhardt had, in the interim, already shifted its sales to a different trade name ("Chymowok") and was doing healthy business under that name, meaning the balance of convenience favoured upholding the injunction. The appeal was accordingly rejected.
Lesson Learnt
In trademark passing-off disputes, a defendant cannot rely on an "acquiescence" defence based merely on the plaintiff's silence or delay: it requires a genuine positive act by the plaintiff, and courts will protect an established trademark's reputation even at the interim-injunction stage.