{"id":2916,"date":"2025-03-25T13:50:23","date_gmt":"2025-03-25T08:20:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=2916"},"modified":"2025-03-25T13:50:23","modified_gmt":"2025-03-25T08:20:23","slug":"delhi-high-court-counterfeiting-medical-devices-is-a-grave-offence-endangering-public-health","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/delhi-high-court-counterfeiting-medical-devices-is-a-grave-offence-endangering-public-health\/","title":{"rendered":"Delhi High Court: Counterfeiting Medical Devices Is a Grave Offence Endangering Public Health"},"content":{"rendered":"<h1><strong>JOHNSON &amp; JOHNSON<\/strong> [Plaintiff]\u00a0 <strong>Vs.\u00a0 \u00a0<\/strong><strong>PRITAMDAS ARORA T\/A M\/S MEDSERVE &amp; ANR<\/strong> [Defendants]<\/h1>\n<p>CS(COMM) 570\/2019 with I.A. 3678\/2021, I.A. 3700\/2021 and I.A. 12068\/2022<\/p>\n<p>CORAM: HON\u2019BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>The Delhi High Court ruled that counterfeiting medical devices is not merely a case of trademark infringement but a serious offence that endangers public health. In a case filed by Johnson &amp; Johnson against M\/s Medserve, the Court awarded Rs. 3.34 crores in damages to the plaintiff and issued a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing and selling counterfeit medical products.<\/p>\n<p>Johnson &amp; Johnson filed a lawsuit seeking a permanent injunction against Medserve for infringing its trademarks and selling counterfeit versions of its medical products, including \u2018SURGICEL\u2019 and \u2018ETHICON\u2019. The plaintiff argued that the defendants\u2019 activities misled consumers and posed significant health risks. In response to the complaint, the Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in 2019, barring the defendants from dealing in counterfeit products. Additionally, court-appointed Local Commissioners conducted search and seizure operations at Medserve\u2019s premises, revealing large-scale counterfeiting activities dating back to at least 2017, with counterfeit sales amounting to Rs. 9.39 crores.<\/p>\n<p>Justice Amit Bansal, presiding over the case, emphasized the grave danger posed by counterfeit medical products. The Court noted that the defendants deliberately misled the public and compromised consumer safety for financial gain. The Court also highlighted an intercepted conversation where a defendant, instead of addressing concerns about infected counterfeit surgical products, suggested resolving complaints through bribery. This act demonstrated a blatant disregard for public health.<\/p>\n<p>The Bench observed that by selling substandard counterfeit products under Johnson &amp; Johnson\u2019s trademarks, Medserve had not only deceived consumers but also inflicted irreparable damage on the plaintiff\u2019s goodwill and market reputation. The Court held that mere compensatory damages would not suffice given the severity of the infringement and the public health risks involved. It, therefore, awarded exemplary damages as well.<\/p>\n<p>Considering the large-scale and deliberate counterfeiting operations, the Delhi High Court passed a decree of permanent injunction against Medserve and granted the following reliefs, i.e., Permanent injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or distributing any products under Johnson &amp; Johnson\u2019s trademarks, including SURGICEL, ETHICON, and LIGACLIP. Destruction of all counterfeit products seized during the search and seizure operations, i.e., Compensatory damages of Rs. 2.34 crores, calculated as 25% of the total sales revenue generated by Medserve from counterfeit products. Exemplary damages of Rs. 1 crore to penalize the defendants for their willful and fraudulent actions.<\/p>\n<p>Reimbursement of actual litigation costs, with Johnson &amp; Johnson required to submit a detailed bill of costs for compensation. The Delhi High Court\u2019s ruling underscores the serious implications of counterfeiting medical devices. The judgment reinforces the stance that selling counterfeit medical products is not just a commercial infringement but a criminal act that endangers lives. The decision serves as a strong deterrent against similar malpractices in the medical industry, ensuring stricter enforcement of intellectual property rights and public health protections.<\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>JOHNSON &amp; JOHNSON [Plaintiff]\u00a0 Vs.\u00a0 \u00a0PRITAMDAS ARORA T\/A M\/S MEDSERVE &amp; ANR [Defendants] CS(COMM) 570\/2019 with I.A. 3678\/2021, I.A. 3700\/2021 and I.A. 12068\/2022 CORAM: HON\u2019BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL &nbsp; The Delhi High Court ruled that counterfeiting medical devices is not merely a case of trademark infringement but a serious offence that endangers public health. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2918,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2916","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2916","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2916"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2916\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2919,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2916\/revisions\/2919"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2918"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2916"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2916"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2916"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}