A court in Pune on Saturday rejected plea of a Nanded-based pharma-sales company, seeking temporary injunction against Serum Institute of India (SII), prohibiting its use of the trademark Covishield for the Covid-19 vaccine. The suit for permanent will continue in the court.

The injunction has been sought in the Commercial Court in Pune by Cutis Biotech, a sole proprietorship concern headquartered in Nanded district, which is a pharmaceutical and medicinal products sales company. Cuits has claimed in the suit filed on January 5 that it had applied for the trademark Covishield on April 29 for their various sanitisation products prior to SII applying for it in June last year.

The SII, through its lawyer, had filed its reply to the suit on January 19. The case is being heard by the Commercial Court presided over by Judge AV Rotte. Meanwhile, Cutis had sought a temporary injunction against the use of trademark Covishield by SII, till the time the suit for permanent injunction is decided.

The arguments of both sides on temporary injunction had concluded on January 22. Senior Advocate SK Jain, who is the attorney for SII, said: “The court in its order on Saturday observed that the plaintiff has not been able to make its case for a temporary injunction. The ruling in the case of temporary injunction has been given in favour of Serum Institute. The suit for permanent injunction will continue.” SII has been one of the kay players in global supplies of vaccines for Covid-19.

Cutis had filed a similar suit at a court in Nanded on December 11 last year. However, their lawyer Aditya Ashok Soni submitted to the court on Friday that they have filed an application to the court in Nanded, seeking withdrawal of the said suit.

After the conclusion of the arguments on January 22, Advocate Jain had said, “The plaintiff has claimed first use of the trademark and has said they applied for it in April last year. We have submitted to the court the information about labels of Covishield which were printed in March last year as part of its development process by Serum Institute. We have told the court that the Cutis had applied for a vaccine trademark in December, when do not even make a vaccine. This information was suppressed and a fraud was committed upon the court. We have also pointed to the court, discrepancies in submission of papers regarding the suit in Nanded and also in submission of invoice of their sanitisation products.”

Countering Advocate Jain’s arguments, Advocate Soni had refuted the allegation of suppression of information and fraud in court by citing a Supreme Court judgment which says that a trademark registration application has no relevance in a case of trade mark “passing off”. The “passing off” is a concept under the Common Law system which enforces unregistered trade mark rights and protects the goodwill of a business from misrepresentation.

Advocate Soni had also cited judgments of high court and the Supreme Court that actual damage was necessary to seek relief but likelihood of damage is sufficient.

Cutis Biotech has said in its suit that it had applied for the trade mark Covishield on April 29 last year after a thorough trademark search. The application is still pending. Since May 30 last year, the company started using the said trademark for products like disinfectants and sanitisers.

The company has said on December 7, they came across the news that SII has applied to the Drug Controller General of India for immediate approval for a vaccine named Covishield in India. Subsequent to that, the suppliers of the company started pulling back due to the name confusion, the suit claims. Cutis again conducted a trademark search and found that SII had applied for the same trademark on June 6 and also for some more names for their vaccine, after which it approached the court in Nanded.