Delhi High Court · 2025-08-29
FRIMLINE PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. vs K-SMATCO LIFESCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
- Citation / case number
- CS(COMM)-808/2025 2025:DHC:7535
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- FRIMLINE PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.
- Respondent
- K-SMATCO LIFESCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
Judgment text excerpt
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 14th August, 2025 Date of Decision: 29th August, 2025 + CS(COMM) 808/2025 & I.A. 19322/2025 I.A. 19323/2025 I.A. 19324/2025 I.A. 19325/2025 FRIMLINE PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. .....Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Bitika Sharma, Mr. P.S. Manjunathan and Mr. Shreedhar, Advocates versus K-SMATCO LIFESCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv for D-1, 3 and 4 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA % JUDGMENT MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J: I.A. 19322/2025(under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC) 1. The captioned application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [‘CPC’], has been filed by the Plaintiffs seeking ad-interim injunction against the Defendants, thereby restraining the Signature Not Verified Signed By:HEMANT CS(COMM) 808/2025 Page 1 of 17 PRATAP SINGH Signing Date:30.08.2025 16:57:47 Defendants from making, using, offering for sale, selling, distributing, advertising, marketing, exporting, importing or in any manner, directly or indirectly, the product ‘FERROTOK PLUS’ and/or the composition as claimed in the suit patent i.e., IN 382949 and/or any other ad-mixture/ combination/ formulation products containing the composition as claimed in the suit patent, during the subsistence of the suit patent. 2. Issue notice. 3. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of Defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and waives off formal service of notice. 4. The present suit concerns infringement of Indian Patent No. 382949 titled “A Pharmaceutical Composition for Anaemia” [‘Suit Patent’] as well as copyright of Plaintiff No. 2’s website [‘Suit Copyright’]. CASE SETUP BY THE PLAINTIFF IN THE PLAINT 5. Mr. Dayan Krishnan, lea