NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL – 462044

PROJECT: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW IN CYBERSPACE

FIRST SEMESTER (BATCH 2020-2021)

DRAFT COPY

TOPIC:
CASE ANALYSIS OF DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES LTD. V MANU KOSURI &
ANR. (2001 (58) DRJ 241)

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Dr. Atul Kumar Pandey Khushboo Saraf
Assistant Professor, NLIU

DATE OF SUMISSION OF SOFT COPY: 29/12/2020

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENT………………………………………………………………...….…….3

DECLARATION………………………………………………………………………………….4

OBJECTIVE……………………………………………………………………………................5

SCOPE OF STUDY……………………………………………………………………………….6

INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………...7

BENCH AND ADVOCATES……………………………………………………………...……..7

MATERIAL FACTS OF THE

CASE……………………………………………………………..8

ISSUES……………………………………………………………………………………………8

CONTENTIONS………………………………………………………………...………………..9

PROVISIONS, DOCTRINES AND

PRINCIPLES……………………………………………...11

PREVIOUS JUDGMENTS REFERRED………………………………………………………..11

BOOKS AND OTHER LITERATURE CITED..….………………………………………….…12

JUDGMENT………………………..…………………………………………………...………12

CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………...……..13
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This project on the study and analysis of the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the
matter of Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. v Manu Kosuri & Anr. (2001 (58) DRJ 241) has been
made possible by the help of Assistant Professor, Dr. Atul Kumar Pandey in Intellectual
Property Law in Cyberspace. He has been kind in helping us choose our cases for this subject
and have been very helpful for us in understanding how a case analysis has to be done.

I would utilize this opportunity to extend my gratitude to everyone who have played a part in
completion of this project.
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this project is not plagiarised and has been duly completed with the use of
available resources. I also declare that all the authorities cited in this project work are duly
acknowledged.
 OBJECTIVES

The primary objectives of the present project are to:

 Analyse the judgement and to chalk out the contents of the judgment under various
heads in a brief manner for better understanding and efficiency.
 To study the various principles enumerated in the judgement and their application.
 To view the judgment from a critical view and different perspective and give my
opinion.
 SCOPE OF STUDY

This project will focus at the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the matter of Dr.
Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. v Manu Kosuri & Anr. (2001 (58) DRJ 241). The study will limit
itself to a critical analysis of the judgment by separating out the judgment into specific categories
for referential purposes. The judgment will be evaluated in terms of statutory law that is
applicable in the present matter and will also try to look at some of the other judgments, principle
and provisions dealt under this case.
 INTRODUCTION

The growth of online commercial activities has been significant and domain names have
acquired the place for business identifiers. In India, domain names can be registered by ‘first
cum first serve’ basis, and there has been significant growth on this concept which has led to
more disputes relating to domain names. Although we do not have any specific law pertaining to
this, Indian courts have played a significant role determining and establishing principles around
the problems of cyber-squatters and protecting trademark and registered domain names.

This is a 2001 judgment where, Dr Reddy’s (‘Plaintiff’) is a pharmaceutical organization,

established in 1984 for research and development activity in the field of medicine. It has a very
strong distribution network in India and also abroad in USA, France, Singapore, Hongkong and
presence in 50 other countries. It is a leader in organic synthesis and also is a proprietor of the
trademark ‘Dr. Reddy’s’. Mr. Manu Kosuri and his online business (Defendants) are a in
business of registering domain names in India, who used domain name ‘drreddyslab.com’ which
was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s trademark. This was brought to the courts notice that
such an infringement would come at the cost of Plaintiff’s reputation and create confusion
among consumers as to the origin of the goods and services.

BENCH AND COUNSELS

 Single Bench in the High Court of Delhi: Hon’ble Justice N.G. Nandi
 Counsels:
o For Plaintiff: Advocate Praveen Anand
 MATERIAL FACTS

 The application for registration of trademark Dr. Reddy’s by the company is pending but
the company has a registered domain name ‘drreddys.com’.
 Plaintiff came to know about the activities of the Defendants, which were to block
domain names consisting well-know trademarks and personalities on the Internet and sell
for large amounts. In January, 1999, Plaintiff learned that the Defendants have registered
a domain name ‘drreddyslab.com’ which shown the caption ‘welcome to the future
Website on drreddyslab.com’.
 A suit for permanent injunction was instituted by the Plaintiff against the defendants for
passing off along with the relief of restraining them from the use of domain name
‘drreddyslab.com’ or any identical or deceptively similar trademark to that of the
Plaintiff’s.

ISSUES
 CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONER

 The word ‘Dr. Reddy’s’ is an essential feature in carrying out its business operations in
the country and abroad. The domain name used by the defendants can cause confusion in
the minds of the consumer and think that it is an authorized business of the Plaintiff’s.

The Defendants did not appear before the court despite service of summons and no written
statement on their behalf was filled.
 PROVISIONS, NOTIFICATIONS/ ORDERS, DOCTRINES/ PRINCIPLES

The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958:

 Section 11: Prohibition of registration of certain marks

 Section 12: Prohibition of registration of identical or deceptively similar trademarks.

BOOK, ARTICLES, ANY OTHER LITERATURE CITED:

No reference has been made regarding this in the judgment.

JUDGEMENT

 Dr. Reddy’s trademark id ‘Dr. Reddy’s’ and the domain name ‘drreddyslab.com’ is used
unfairly by the Defendants. Dr. Reddy is the original registered owner of the said
trademark by virtue of its continuous and extensive use, advertising and the reputation
and goodwill it enjoys as result of being in existence for a considerable amount of time.
 Since the function of a domain name is akin to a trademark on the Internet it is of vital
importance in e-commerce as it can affect online trade. The potential for confusion or
deception being caused can in all likelihood cause damage to Dr. Reddy’s business and
reputation in the market.
 It is a settled legal position that when a company does business under a name which
another company has been carrying out its business transactions, the public at large is
likely to be misled that the business of the former is the business of the latter.
 Defendants were restrained by a permanent injunction from registering a domain name or
operating any business on the internet and anywhere else under the domain name
‘drreddyslab.com’ or any other identical and similar trademark. Payment of the cost of
the suit and other profits made as a result of using Plaintiff’s trademark must be paid to
the Plaintiff.
CONCLUSION