JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J. Plaintiff has tiled this suit for injunction against the Defendants alleging that the Defendants are infringing Plaintiff's trademark DECAMYCIN by adopting and copying identical label with all its essential features, writing style and placement of words and configuration. The averments, which are made in the plaint on the basis of which the suit is filed, are to the following effect. 2. The Plaintiff is one of the leading manufacturers of pharmaceutical products in India and also has the unique distinction of many pharmaceutical inventions. Amongst the well-known products of the Plaintiff is a Cartico Steroid, life saving drug under the trademark DECAMYCIN. The said product is essentially a life saving drug. For the purpose of carrying out its activities, the Plaintiff has a systematic and the most advanced research and development wing employing exclusively more than 7000 employees including well-known scientists and researchers. 3. The Plaintiff adopted the trademark DECAMYCIN along with the artistic features of the label thereof way back in 1970 and the said mark has been in extensive and continuous use since then. The trademark DECAMYCIN is coined, unique and an invented word. The said trademark along with its essential features and peculiar position of letter 'R' with green patch is unique and distinctive of its style and pattern and is associated with the Plaintiff only. The label along with letter 'R' in angular position being highly identifiable and recognizable amongst the purchasing public and people in the pharmaceutical industry on account of its inherent distinctiveness confers upon the Plaintiff the exclusive right to the use thereof. 4. The Plaintiff has advertised its products extensively and has spent large amounts on advertisements and publicity since its launch in the market. The said product of the Plaintiff with the distinctive colour scheme, get up and layout has gained tremendous reputation in the market so much so that the said product with its unique characteristics as represented on the label with green colour cap and placement of letter 'R' in angular position is identified exclusively with the Plaintiff only and no one else. The huge popularity of the Plaintiff's product is reflected from the voluminous sales. The details of the sales figures for the product DECAMYCIN are as follows: YEAR SALES FIGURES In the year 2000 Rs. 141.30 lacs In the year 2001 Rs. 841.90 lacs In the year 2002 Rs. The huge popularity of the Plaintiff's product is reflected from the voluminous sales. The details of the sales figures for the product DECAMYCIN are as follows: YEAR SALES FIGURES In the year 2000 Rs. 141.30 lacs In the year 2001 Rs. 841.90 lacs In the year 2002 Rs. 640.80 lacs (From January 2002 to July 2003) IMAGE 5. LABEL: The entire label constitutes white colour in the center of which runs a green horizontal line 2 cm in length. The words Dexamethasone Sodium Phosphate Injection IP appear above the green line. The trademark DECAMYCIN appearing in center is written in black, beside letter 'R' displayed prominently in an angular position with slightly thick green patch in the right of the center having "4 mg/ml" written in white on green device and also placed in between green device and green line "20 ml", written in black. The most predominant and conspicuous features of the Plaintiff's label is the angular position of the letter 'R', a green patch (parallelogram) marked inside as 4 mg/ml and a green line drawn below 20 ml. The word 'RANBAXY' written in blue font is displayed at the bottom of center. The left side of the label is general information regarding dosage, precaution etc. written in black coloured lettering on a white background with Schedule 'H' Drug warning in a black outlined box. The right side of the label shows the manufacturing Licence No., Batch No., Manufacturing date, Expiry date, Retail price, Name of the manufacturer and Marketed by, all in black colour against the white background. The letter 'R' is placed in an angular position and has been written in a unique, distinctive manner and style. 6. Plaintiff submits that the said DECAMYCIN label was developed by the employees of the Plaintiff company, during the course of their employment with the Plaintiff company. Therefore, the Plaintiff is the first owner of copyright in the artistic work comprised in the said label and carton. The said label is an original artistic work within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957. The Plaintiff is the owner of the copyright in the artistic work comprised in the said label as the same was created for and on its behalf by its employees. 7. The said label is an original artistic work within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957. The Plaintiff is the owner of the copyright in the artistic work comprised in the said label as the same was created for and on its behalf by its employees. 7. It is also submitted that by virtue of prior adoption, long, continuous and extensive user as well as owing to the large scale publicity, the said label along with these artistic features and colour scheme, lay out arrangement of features and get up, is identified exclusively with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has, therefore, the exclusive right to use the said label and artistic work. The adoption of similar or identical features, get up, layout and colour combination or writing style by a third party without the consent, approval or licence of the Plaintiff would amount to a violation and infringement of the Plaintiffs copyright in its entirety. Defendant has adopted an identical writing style by placing the alphabet 'A' in a similar style and position as the letter 'R' in the Plaintiffs label. 8. Case of the Plaintiff is that a bare perusal of the Defendants' product bearing the infringing artistic work corresponding to the Plaintiffs artistic work, colour combination and layout shows that the Defendants' products are a substantial reproduction/imitation of the Plaintiffs work. The reproduction of the same work by the Defendant on its label amounts to the blatant infringement of the Plaintiff's copyright and also infringement of all other essential features like trade marks. The most predominant and conspicuous features of the Plaintiffs label is angular position of letter 'R', a green patch marked inside as 4 mg and a green line on the trademark DECAMYCIN besides other information which has been slavishly copied by the Defendants. 9. According to Plaintiff, the Defendants additionally, copied the entire artistic work comprised in the arrangement of features, colour combination, layout and get up of the label. The Defendants have slavishly copied the Plaintiffs distinctive label, almost feature by feature, as demonstrated by the comparison given below: The entire label is white in the center of which runs a horizontal green line 2 cm in length. The words Dexamethasone sodium phosphate Injection IP appears above the said green line The entire label is white in the center of which runs a parallel horizontal green line 2 cm in length. The words Dexamethasone sodium phosphate Injection IP appears above the said green line The entire label is white in the center of which runs a parallel horizontal green line 2 cm in length. The words Dexamethasone sodium phosphate Injection IP appear above the said green line. The white label comprises inter alia, a green parallelogram on the right of center, containing 4 mg/ml in white lettering (the green device). Below this green device "20 ml" appear in black lettering on a green line. The letter 'R' is predominantly displayed in a regular position. The white label comprises inter alia, a green parallelogram on the right of center, containing "mg/ml" in white lettering (the green device). Below this green lettering on a green line. The letter 'A' is predominantly displayed in a angular position. The left side of the label a general information regarding composition, dosage, caution etc. written in black lettering with Schedule 'H' drug warning in a black outlined box. The left side of the label a general information regarding composition, dosage, caution etc. written in black lettering which schedule 'H' drug warning in a black outlined box. The right side of the label appears manufacturer licence No., batch No,, manufacturing date, expiry date, retail price, in black lettering followed by the name and address of the Plaintiff at the bottom. The right side of the label appears manufacturer licence No., batch No. manufacturing date, expiry date, retail price, in black lettering followed by the name and address of the Defendants at the bottom. The letter 'R' in the Plaintiffs label has been written in a distinctive manner in the center and displayed in angular position. The letter 'A' in the Defendants' label has been written in an identical manner and too displayed in angular position. The bottle is a cylindrical vial in shape with a colourless liquid, a green cap attached to the inner silver cover. The bottle is a cylindrical vial in shape with a colourless liquid, a green cap, attached to the inner silver cover. The green cap is tightly attached to the inner cover. The green cap is tightly fixed to the inner cover. The entire label is white in the center of which runs a horizontal green line 2 cm in length. The words Dexamethasone sodium phosphate Injection IP appears above the said green line. The green cap is tightly attached to the inner cover. The green cap is tightly fixed to the inner cover. The entire label is white in the center of which runs a horizontal green line 2 cm in length. The words Dexamethasone sodium phosphate Injection IP appears above the said green line. The entire label is white in the center of which runs a parallel horizontal green line 2 cm in length. The words Dexamethasone sodium phosphate Injection IP appear above the said green line. The white label comprises inter alia, a green parallelogram on the right of center, containing 4 mg/ml in white lettering (the green device). Below this green device "20 ml" appear in black lettering on a green line. The letter 'R' is predominantly displayed in a regular position. The white label comprises inter alia, a green parallelogram on the right of center, containing "mg/ml" in white lettering (the green device). Below this green lettering on a green line. The letter 'A' is predominantly displayed in a angular position. The left side of the label a general information regarding composition, dosage, caution etc. written in black lettering with Schedule 'H' drug warning in a black outlined box. The left side of the label a general information regarding composition, dosage, caution etc. written in black lettering which schedule 'H' drug warning in a black outlined box. The right side of the label appears manufacturer licence No., batch No,, manufacturing date, expiry date, retail price, in black lettering followed by the name and address of the Plaintiff at the bottom. The right side of the label appears manufacturer licence No., batch No. manufacturing date, expiry date, retail price, in black lettering followed by the name and address of the Defendants at the bottom. The letter 'R' in the Plaintiffs label has been written in a distinctive manner in the center and displayed in angular position. The letter 'A' in the Defendants' label has been written in an identical manner and too displayed in angular position. The bottle is a cylindrical vial in shape with a colourless liquid, a green cap attached to the inner silver cover. The bottle is a cylindrical vial in shape with a colourless liquid, a green cap, attached to the inner silver cover. The green cap is tightly attached to the inner cover. The green cap is tightly fixed to the inner cover. 10. The bottle is a cylindrical vial in shape with a colourless liquid, a green cap, attached to the inner silver cover. The green cap is tightly attached to the inner cover. The green cap is tightly fixed to the inner cover. 10. On issuing summons and the notice, Defendants appeared and filed the written statement to which replication was filed by the Plaintiff. However, nobody appeared on behalf of the Defendants on 18.11.2003. Still the issues were framed and the matter was listed for evidence for which Local Commissioner was appointed. Before the Local Commissioner also nobody appeared on behalf of the Defendants, even when Local Commissioner issued notice to the Defendants. He accordingly submitted his report and matter was taken up by the Court on 19.5.2004 and after perusal of the report, the Defendants were ordered to be proceeded ex-parte. The Plaintiff led evidence before the Local Commissioner and there was no cross-examination of the Plaintiffs witnesses as Defendants had not appeared. Defendants did not file their evidence either. The testimony of the Plaintiff is, therefore, unrebutted. In the evidence, the witness of the Plaintiff has stated, on oath, the same facts/averments which are made in the plaint and noted above. On the basis of this unrebutted testimony and after perusing the record, I am of view that the adoption by the Defendants of the impugned label is a slavish copy of the Plaintiffs label in respect of its colour scheme, arrangement of features, get up and layout of the label. Defendants have, therefore, committed an act of infringement of copyright and passing off their goods as that of the Plaintiff. 11. In Colgate Palmolive Company and Another Vs. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd., (2003) 108 DLT 51 this Court in similar circumstances gave the injunction as under: It is the overall impression that customer gets as to the source and origin of the goods from visual impression of colour combination, shape of the container, packaging etc. If illiterate, unwary and gullible customers gets confused as to the source and origin of the goods which he has been using for longer period by way of getting the goods in a container having particular shape, colour combination and get up, it amounts to passing off. If illiterate, unwary and gullible customers gets confused as to the source and origin of the goods which he has been using for longer period by way of getting the goods in a container having particular shape, colour combination and get up, it amounts to passing off. In other words if the first glance of the article without going into the minute details of the colour combination, getup or lay out appearing on the container and packaging gives the impression as to deceptive or near similarities in respect of these ingredients, it is a case of confusion and amounts to passing off one's own goods as those of the other with a view to encash upon the goodwill and reputation of the latter. The Plaintiffs have succeeded prima facie in showing from the look of trade dress of the two articles, one manufactured by the Plaintiff and another by the Defendant from the point of view of not only unwary, illiterate customer/servants of the household but semi-literate also as the trademarks "Colgate" and "Anchor" are written in English language cannot be distinguished by ordinary customer of a country where bare literacy level is abysmally low. There is every likelihood of confusion as to the source on account of the similarity of substantial portion of the container having particular colour combination and also shape of the container which alone helps in determining the allegations of passing off despite stripes in the same colour or in different colour... ...If similarities of trade dress are substantial from the look of the two goods, it comes within the mischief of passing off. As a consequence the application is allowed and Defendants are, by way of ad interim injunction, restrained from using the colour combination of red and white in that order on the container/packaging of its goods viz. the "Tooth Powder. 12. Likewise, in United Distillers Plc. v. Jagdish Joshi and Ors. 2000 PTC 502 , injunction was granted after noticing striking similarity in the trade dress used in the offending product. That was a case where the Defendants had used the trademark 'Johnnie Walker' for Gutka and for no similarity in the trade as was offered. the "Tooth Powder. 12. Likewise, in United Distillers Plc. v. Jagdish Joshi and Ors. 2000 PTC 502 , injunction was granted after noticing striking similarity in the trade dress used in the offending product. That was a case where the Defendants had used the trademark 'Johnnie Walker' for Gutka and for no similarity in the trade as was offered. The Court held that the Plaintiff can make a grievance about the striding figure of a hated person and the colour scheme of the Defendant's trade dress which does prima facie appear to be inspired by the Plaintiffs product. A bare perusal of the trade dress of the Defendant denotes a striking similarity between the Defendant's and the Plaintiffs products. 13. Accordingly, the suit of the Plaintiff is decreed for permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants, their partners or proprietors, directors, promoters or principal officers as the case may be, their servants and agents, distributors, stockists etc. acting for and on their behalf from manufacturing, marketing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly or dealing in any manner in any medicinal or pharmaceutical preparation in any form bearing the identical label and/or label deceptively similar to the label of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff shall also be entitled to cost. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.