AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C. Hari Shankar, J.
REVIEW PET. 402/2025
The review petitioner presses Review Pet. 402/2025, which seeks review of judgment dated 4 July 2025 passed by this bench in RFA (OS) (COMM) 18/2025.
The review petitioner submits that there are three typographical errors in the judgment dated 4 July 2025.
The first error to which the review petitioner draws our attention is contained in para 12 of the judgment, which reads thus:
“12 …This disclosed that the appellant had earned ₹ 8,64,440/-, by sale of Liv-333 capsules and syrup after 24 May 2024.”
The review petitioner submits that the appellant had earned ₹ 15,11,166.41 from the sale of Liv-333 syrup and capsule after 24 May 2024 and not ₹ 8,64,440. Accordingly , para 12 shall read thus:
“12 …This disclosed that the appellant had earned ₹ 15,11,166.41/-, by sale of Liv-333 capsules and syrup after 24 May 2024.”
The second error to which the review petitioner draws our attention is contained in para 26 of the judgment, which reads thus:
“26.Mr. Sai Deepak, learned Senior Counsel, who appears on advance notice, submits that there is no error in the impugned judgment, and that there is no reasonable explanation for the appellant adopting ‘Liv-333’ as the mark under which they were manufacturing and selling therapeutic liver preparations, even though the respondents ‘Liv.52’ was almost a household mark, and had been in the market since 1930. No case for interference with the impugned judgment, he submits, exists.”
The review petitioner submits that the respondents’ goods under the Liv.52 trademark have been in the market, not from 1930 but from 1955. Accordingly , para 26 shall read thus:
“26.Mr. Sai Deepak, learned Senior Counsel, who appears on advance notice, submits that there is no error in the impugned judgment, and that there is no reasonable explanation for the appellant adopting ‘Liv-333’ as the mark under which they were manufacturing and selling therapeutic liver preparations, even though the respondents ‘Liv.52’ was almost a household mark, and had been in the market since 1955. No case for interference with the impugned judgment, he submits, exists.”
The third error to which the review petitioner draws our attention is contained in para 41 of the judgment, which reads thus:
“41 …The plaint, as filed before the learned Single Judge, sought to explain the origin of the mark ‘Liv.52’ as a combination of ‘Liv’ as an abbreviation for ‘liver’ and ‘52’ as representing the year in which the mark was coined….”
The review petitioner submits that the origin of the mark Liv.52 as a combination of ‘Liv’ as an abbreviation for Liver and ‘52’ does not represent the year in which the mark was coined but ‘52’ is coined from the formula coded liver formulation that was used for trial and found to show significant improvement in liver functions. Accordingly , para 41 shall read thus:
“41 …The plaint, as filed before the learned Single Judge, sought to explain the origin of the mark ‘Liv.52’ as a combination of ‘Liv’ as an abbreviation for ‘liver’ and ‘52’ was coined from the formula coded liver formulation which was used for trial and found to show significant improvement in liver functions….”
The errors are corrected.
The review petition is allowed accordingly.