A Maharashtra civil court has issued a notice to the Serum Institute of India (SII) in a bogus lawsuit that seeks to prevent the pharmaceutical company from using the trademark “COVISHIELD” or “COVID-SHIELD” or any other identical or similar name for its proposed vaccine for the Coronavirus-induced pandemic.
The civil lawsuit was filed by a Nanded-based pharmaceutical company “Cutis Biotech” that claimed to be the “prior and legal user” of the trade name “COVI SHIELD”. The plaintiff claims that he filed an application for registration of the trademark “COVI SHIELD” in his name on April 29, 2020.
The lawsuit indicates that the SII applied for the trade names “COVI SHIELD” and “COVID SHIELD” only in June. It also points out that on July 11, the Registrar of Trademarks raised an objection to the SII’s requests, stating that the plaintiff had made a prior request regarding the trademark.
“The defendants, even after becoming aware of the plaintiff’s trademark, have not taken the necessary steps to stop using the plaintiff’s trademark.”says the complaint.
The lawsuit also features a Telengana businessman, Mr. Bandaru Srinivas, as the second defendant in the allegation that he is also attempting to use the plaintiff’s trademark.
On December 11, the Nanded Additional District Court notified the defendants about the lawsuit. The next hearing date is December 18.
Adar Poonawalla, executive director of the Pune-based SII, announced on December 7 that he had applied for emergency use authorization for the Covishield coronavirus vaccine.
“As promised, before the end of 2020, @SerumInstIndia has applied for emergency use authorization for the first vaccine made in India, COVISHIELD. This will save countless lives, and I thank the government of India and [email protected] for their invaluable support, “tThe CEO of the Serum Institute of India said in a tweet.
Cutis Biotech says in its lawsuit that it has placed orders with several manufacturers for other drugs under the name “COVI SHIELD”, but manufacturers are reluctant to receive orders under the name “COVI SHIELD” due to published news about the use of IBS. name.
“This has caused harm to the goodwill of the plaintiff due to the misrepresentation of its trademark by the first defendant (SII). Most importantly, it is causing confusion between the public and the manufacturers. Therefore, it is necessary to issue a perpetual court order in favor of the plaintiff by preventing defendant # 1 from passing goods under the trademark “COVI SHIELD” or “COVID SHIELD”, says the plaintiff.
It is stated that regardless of the fact that the trademark application is pending, the plaintiff has the right to seek redress against the defendants for going.
“Plaintiff’s trademark” COVI SHIELD “fully qualifies the imitation criteria set forth in various landmark judgments of the Honorable Supreme Court,” the lawsuit states.
The suit looks for the following sentence:
“Passing a perpetual injunction decree can be kindly issued that restricts and prohibits the defendants or any other person who claims through them to pass drugs and pharmaceuticals, allopathic, veterinary, Ayurvedic preparations or products for human and animal use , as well as vitamins and dietary supplements for humans and animals under the trade name “COVI SHIELD” as well as the trademark “COVID SHIELD” which is identical or similar to the plaintiff’s trademark “COVI SHIELD”.
.
