In this week’s review of Court Judgments, we look at Supreme Court’s observation regarding departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings being different with no bearing on each other, the Delhi High Court’s decision regarding the claim on Tehbazari right, and its judgment on non-infringement of trademark regarding the name of a drug. We also look at the Gujarat High Court’s judgment on the non-liability of compensation relating to the Motor Vehicle act and the J&K High Court’s observation regarding proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. Supreme Court: Employee dismissed after disciplinary proceedings cannot be reinstated merely because he was acquitted in a related Criminal Case Supreme Court bench comprising of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia observed that an employee who was dismissed from service due to a disciplinary enquiry cannot be reinstated merely because he is acquitted by the criminal court by giving the benefit of the doubt for the same set of charges. As per the case details, Phool Singh joined Rajasthan Police Service as a constable. There was a departmental proceeding initiated against him for three allegations – consumption of alcohol, indecent abuse, and demand for a bribe of Rs.100 and firing at the public that was chasing him. These allegations were proved in the departmental enquiry, and he was dismissed from service. An FIR was also lodged against him under Sections 392, 307 IPC and Section 34 of the Police Act read with Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. He was convicted of these charges in the Trial Court. However, the Appellate Court upheld his appeal and acquitted him giving him the benefit of the doubt. Based on this acquittal, he moved an application with the authorities for reinstatement, which was not responded favourably by the authorities. He proceeded to file a writ petition, which was taken note of by the Rajasthan High Court and directed his reinstatement. The State Government filed an appeal in the Supreme Court asking whether he can be reinstated in service as he has been acquitted by the Criminal Court for the same set of charges. The bench referred to earlier cases, where-in it was consistently held that their two proceedings – Criminal & Departmental are different. It observed that merely because one was acquitted in the criminal court does not result in reinstatement of someone who is found guilty in the departmental proceedings. The court also added that the acquittal by the criminal court was not an honourable acquittal as it was based on the benefit of the doubt. Hence the Supreme Court Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court for reinstatement. Delhi HC: Manufacturer can’t claim exclusivity over Trademark when it is derived from Principal Ingredient of Drug In the case of Sun Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs. Hetero Healthcare Ltd. & Anr., the Delhi High Court rejected the appeal of Sun Pharma, which claimed Hetero HealthCare’s drug used to treat advanced breast cancer had infringed its trademark. The bench comprising of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan was looking into the appeal by Sun Pharmaceutical Laboratories Ltd, challenging an order by Commercial Court. A suit was earlier filed by Sun Pharma, alleging the infringement of trademark “LETROZ” and seeking a permanent injunction restraining Hetero from using the brand, ‘LETERO”. Sun Pharma claimed that it has been using the trademark since 2001, for a generic drug for second-line treatment of advanced breast cancer. The division bench noted that the mark adopted by Sun Pharma was the first six letters of the ingredient, “Letrozole”, which is the international non-proprietary name of salt, and upheld the earlier order issued by Commercial Court. The High Court concurred with Commercial Court that there is little possibility of confusion or deception in the purchaser’s mind based on the name of the drugs i.e., Sun Pharma’s Letroz and Hetero’s Letero. It referred to an earlier judgement in Panacea Biotec Ltd vs. Recon Ltd, where it was held that no distinctiveness or exclusiveness can be claimed by the manufacturer when the name is derived from the word of the principal ingredient being used in the manufacture of the drug. Apart from the possibility of confusion in the name, the court also looked into any possible harm resulting from the confusion among the names of the drugs. The court also noted that the packaging and the colour scheme are also not similar, which otherwise would have caused confusion. The court proceeded to dismiss the appeal.