Reddy Laboratories vs. Reddy Pathlabs


Plaintiff, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited, prayed before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court to prevent the defendant (Dr. Reddy Pathlabs Private Limited) from providing healthcare, pathology, diagnostic services under the mark name of ‘DR. REDDYS’. The plaintiff contended that the defendant’s act amounts to the infringement of his trademark name ‘DR. REDDYS’ is a registered trademark under classes 5 and 44.


By the plaintiff:

This infringement came into the plaintiff’s knowledge in August 2020 when one of the company representatives invited the plaintiff to look at the website – The plaintiff learned that the defendant was carrying the illegal and unauthorized business activities under the identical trademark named- ‘DR. REDDYS’ as part of the website and domain name. Not only this, but the plaintiff also discovered that the defendant had a path lab in Hyderabad and also had put-up labs in the same name in Orissa and Madhya Pradesh. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit for the same.

Also read: ChannelCon or Channel Icon? Passing off in trademark

By the defendants:

The defendant filed an application stating that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit as the offices of both the parties are located in Hyderabad, and the defendant is not conducting any business in Delhi. Therefore, no cause of action lies within the jurisdiction of this Court. However, the defendants stated that it is half-truth as the plaintiff discovered this in August 2020 and served them with a cease-and-desist notice on 3rd August 2018. The defendant also stated that Section 134 of The Trade Marks Act, 1999 has no application to the facts of this case as the same is relevant only for infringement of trademarks. In contrast, the present suit is a composite suit for passing off and unfair competition.


The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi observed that the plaintiff is providing its services through its website to the consumers of Delhi, and the products are available to the consumers in Delhi. It is the settled position that the possibility to conclude transactions through a website at a particular place is virtually identical to a seller having a shop in that place in the real world. Therefore, this Hon’ble Court has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit in the view of Section 20 of CPC and Section 134 (2) of The Trade Marks Act, 1999. 

Also read: GOOD DAY trademark infringement: Britannia Industries bags injunction

Further, since the defendant has been advertising his services and products through various social media platforms, Just Dial, Facebook, and others, which are easily accessible to the residents of Delhi, which is well within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. Thus, Justice Jayant Nath stated that this Hon’ble Court has an absolute authority to try and entertain the present suit under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 

No conclusion was drawn in this case as there was no cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court at this stage. The application of the defendant under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint concerning competent jurisdiction was thus dismissed, and the case is scheduled for further hearing.

Cases Referred:
1. Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Dalia & Anr., (2015)10SCC 161
2. Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd. vs. A. Murali Krishna Reddy & Anr., 2010 (42) PTC 361 (Del.)
3. M/s. RSPL Ltd. vs. Mukesh Sharma & Anr., (2016) 232 DLT 161
4. Boston Scientific International B.V. vs. Metro Hospital, (2007)136 DLT 278
5. A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem, (1989) 2 SCC 163

Authored by: Kashish Tiwari; student of Ajeenkya DY Patil University, Pune

Disclaimer: This brief is intended to provide general guidance to the subject matter. It does not contain legal advice. For any specific advice/corrections, write to [email protected]


Related Posts