{"id":230774,"date":"2004-05-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-05-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/milmet-oftho-industries-ors-vs-allergan-inc-on-7-may-2004"},"modified":"2019-02-01T23:58:10","modified_gmt":"2019-02-01T18:28:10","slug":"milmet-oftho-industries-ors-vs-allergan-inc-on-7-may-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/milmet-oftho-industries-ors-vs-allergan-inc-on-7-may-2004","title":{"rendered":"Milmet Oftho Industries &amp; Ors vs Allergan Inc on 7 May, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Milmet Oftho Industries &amp; Ors vs Allergan Inc on 7 May, 2004<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S N Variava<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S. N. Variava, H. K. Sema.<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  5791 of 1998\n\nPETITIONER:\nMilmet Oftho Industries &amp; Ors.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nAllergan Inc.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/05\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nS. N. VARIAVA &amp; H. K. SEMA.\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>S. N. VARIAVA, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThis Appeal is against the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court<br \/>\ndated 6th November, 1997.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tBriefly stated the facts are as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>The Appellants are an Indian Pharmaceutical company.  The<br \/>\nRespondents are also a Pharmaceutical company which manufacture<br \/>\npharmaceutical products in several countries.   The Respondents filed<br \/>\na Suit for an injunction based on an action for passing off in respect of<br \/>\nmark &#8220;OCUFLOX&#8221; used on a medicinal preparation manufactured and<br \/>\nmarketed by the Respondents.  The Respondents claimed that they<br \/>\nwere the prior users of the mark OCUFLOX in respect of an eye care<br \/>\nproduct containing Ofloxacin and other compounds.   They claimed<br \/>\nthat they first used this Mark on 9th September, 1992, after which they<br \/>\nmarketed the product in other countries like Europe, Australia, South<br \/>\nAfrica and South America and that they had obtained registration in<br \/>\nAustralia, Bolivia, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, South Africa, Canada and the<br \/>\nUnited States of America.  They claimed that they had also applied for<br \/>\nregistration of the mark in several other countries including India and<br \/>\nthat their applications were pending.  The Appellants were selling<br \/>\n&#8220;OCUFLOX&#8221; on a medicinal preparation containing CIPROFLOXACIN<br \/>\nHCL to be used for the treatment of the eye and the ear.   They claim<br \/>\nthat they coined the word &#8220;OCUFLOX&#8221; by taking the prefix &#8220;OCU&#8221; from<br \/>\n&#8220;OCULAR&#8221; and &#8220;FLOX&#8221; from &#8220;CIPROFLOXACIN&#8221; which is the basic<br \/>\nconstituent of their product.   The Appellants were granted registration<br \/>\nby the Food and Drug Control Administration on 25th August, 1993.<br \/>\nThey have also applied for registration of the mark OCUFLOX in<br \/>\nSeptember 1993.   Their application is also pending.<br \/>\n\tOn 18th December, 1996 the Respondents got an ad interim<br \/>\ninjunction.  This injunction however was vacated on 29th January,<br \/>\n1997.    The single Judge held that the Respondents&#8217; product was not<br \/>\nbeing sold in India and the Appellants having introduced the product<br \/>\nfirst in India, the Respondents were not entitled to an injunction.<br \/>\n\tThe Appeal filed by the Respondents had been allowed by the<br \/>\nimpugned Judgment.  The impugned Judgment has taken note of the<br \/>\nlaw laid down by this Court.  It has been held that the Respondents<br \/>\nwere first in the market and therefore they were entitled to an<br \/>\ninjunction.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe law on the subject is well settled by a number of decisions.<br \/>\nIt is not necessary to set out all those decisions.  It would suffice to<br \/>\nrefer to only two decisions.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1732339\/\">N. R. Dongre vs. Whirlpool Corporation<\/a> reported in<br \/>\n1996 (16) PTC 583, the Appellants got registered the mark &#8220;Whirlpool&#8221;<br \/>\nin respect of washing machines.  The Whirlpool Corporation filed a suit<br \/>\nfor passing off action brought by the Respondents to restrain the<br \/>\nAppellants from manufacturing, selling, advertising or in any way using<br \/>\nthe trade mark &#8220;Whirlpool&#8221; of their product.  It was held that the<br \/>\npassing off an action was maintainable in law even against the<br \/>\nregistered owner of the trademark.  It was held that the name of<br \/>\n&#8220;Whirlpool&#8221; was associated for long with the Whirlpool Corporation and<br \/>\nthat its trans-border reputation extended to India.   It was held that<br \/>\nthe mark &#8220;Whirlpool&#8221; gave an indication of the origin of the goods as<br \/>\nemanating from or relating to the Whirlpool Corporation.  It was held<br \/>\nthat an injunction was a relief in equity and was based on equitable<br \/>\nprinciples.  It was held that the equity required that an injunction be<br \/>\ngranted in favour of the Whirlpool Corporation.   It was held that the<br \/>\nrefusal of an injunction could cause irreparable injury to the reputation<br \/>\nof the Whirlpool Corporation, whereas grant of an injunction would<br \/>\ncause no significant injury to the Appellants who could sell their<br \/>\nwashing machines merely by removing a small label bearing the name<br \/>\n&#8220;Whirlpool&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1114158\/\">Cadila Health Care Ltd. vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals<br \/>\nLtd.<\/a> reported in 2001 PTC 300 (SC), the question was whether the<br \/>\nmark &#8220;Falicigo&#8221; and &#8220;Falcitab&#8221; were deceptively similar.  The trial Court<br \/>\nrefused interim injunction.  The Appeal was also dismissed.  This Court<br \/>\ndid not interfere on the ground that the matter required evidence on<br \/>\nmerits but laid down principles on which such cases were required to<br \/>\nbe decided.  This Court held that in a passing off action for deciding<br \/>\nthe question of deceptive similarity the following facts had to be taken<br \/>\ninto consideration:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;a) The nature of the marks i.e. whether the marks are<br \/>\nword marks or label marks or composite marks, i.e. both<br \/>\nwords and label works.\n<\/p>\n<p>b) The degree of resembleness between the marks,<br \/>\nphonetically similar and hence similar in idea.\n<\/p>\n<p>c) The nature of the goods in respect of which they are<br \/>\nused as trade marks.\n<\/p>\n<p>d) The similarity in the nature, character and performance<br \/>\nof the goods of the rival traders.\n<\/p>\n<p>e) The class of purchasers who are likely to buy the goods<br \/>\nbearing the marks they require, on their education and<br \/>\nintelligence and a degree of care they are likely to exercise<br \/>\nin purchasing and\/or using the goods.\n<\/p>\n<p>f) The mode of purchasing the goods or placing orders for<br \/>\nthe goods, and <\/p>\n<p>g) Any other surrounding circumstances which may be<br \/>\nrelevant in the extent of dissimilarity between the<br \/>\ncompeting marks.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>In respect of medicinal products it was held that exacting judicial<br \/>\nscrutiny is required if there was a possibility of confusion over marks<br \/>\non medicinal products because the potential harm may be far more<br \/>\ndire than that in confusion over ordinary consumer products.   It was<br \/>\nheld that even though certain products may not be sold across the<br \/>\ncounter, nevertheless it was not uncommon that because of lack of<br \/>\ncompetence or otherwise that mistakes arise specially where the trade<br \/>\nmarks are deceptively similar.   It was held that confusion and<br \/>\nmistakes could arise even for prescription drugs where the similar<br \/>\ngoods are marketed under marks which looked alike and sound alike.<br \/>\nIt was held that physicians are not immune from confusion or mistake.<br \/>\nIt was held that it was common knowledge that many prescriptions are<br \/>\ntelephoned to the pharmacists and others are handwritten, and<br \/>\nfrequently the handwriting is not legible.   It was held that these facts<br \/>\nenhance the chances of confusion or mistake by the pharmacists in<br \/>\nfilling the prescription if the marks appear too much alike.<br \/>\n\tWe are in full agreement with what has been laid down by this<br \/>\nCourt.   Whilst considering the possibility of likelihood of deception or<br \/>\nconfusion, in present times and particularly in the field of medicines,<br \/>\nthe Courts must also keep in mind the fact that nowadays the field of<br \/>\nmedicine is of an international character.  The Court has to keep in<br \/>\nmind the possibility that with the passage of time, some conflict may<br \/>\noccur between the use of the mark by the Applicant in India and the<br \/>\nuser by the overseas company.  The Court must ensure that public<br \/>\ninterest is in no way imperiled.   Doctors particularly eminent doctors,<br \/>\nmedical practitioners and persons or Companies connected with<br \/>\nmedical field keep abrest of latest developments in medicine and<br \/>\npreparations worldwide.  Medical literature is freely available in this<br \/>\ncountry.  Doctors, medical practitioners and persons connected with<br \/>\nthe medical field regularly attend medical conferences, symposiums,<br \/>\nlectures etc.   It must also be remembered that nowadays goods are<br \/>\nwidely advertised in newspapers, periodicals, magazines and other<br \/>\nmedia which is available in the country.  This results in a product<br \/>\nacquiring a worldwide reputation.  Thus, if a mark in respect of a drug<br \/>\nis associated with the Respondents worldwide it would lead to an<br \/>\nanomalous situation if an identical mark in respect of a similar drug is<br \/>\nallowed to be sold in India.  However one note of caution must be<br \/>\nexpressed.   Multinational corporations, who have no intention of<br \/>\ncoming to India or introducing their product in India should not be<br \/>\nallowed to throttle an Indian Company by not permitting it to sell a<br \/>\nproduct in India, if the Indian Company has genuinely adopted the<br \/>\nmark and developed the product and is first in the market.  Thus the<br \/>\nultimate test should be who is first in the market.<br \/>\nIn the present case, the marks are the same.  They are in<br \/>\nrespect of pharmaceutical products.   The mere fact that the<br \/>\nRespondents have not been using the mark in India would be<br \/>\nirrelevant if they were first in the world market.  The Division Bench<br \/>\nhad relied upon material which prima-facie shows that the<br \/>\nRespondents product was advertised before the Appellants entered the<br \/>\nfield.   On the basis of that material the Division Bench has concluded<br \/>\nthat the Respondents were first to adopt the mark.  If that be so then<br \/>\nno fault can be found with the conclusion drawn by the Division Bench.<br \/>\nHowever, it was submitted on behalf of the Appellants that the<br \/>\nRespondents were not the first to use the mark.  It was submitted that<br \/>\nthere was no proof that the Respondents had adopted the mark and<br \/>\nused the mark before the Appellants started using the mark in India.<br \/>\nIn our view, these are matters which would require examination on<br \/>\nevidence.  Considering the fact that for all these years, because of the<br \/>\ninjunction Order, the Appellants have sold their product under some<br \/>\nother name, the balance of convenience is that the injunction order be<br \/>\ncontinued and the hearing of the Suit be expedited.  If on evidence it<br \/>\nis proved that the Respondents had adopted the mark prior to the<br \/>\nAppellants doing so, on the settled law, then the Respondents would<br \/>\nbecome entitled to an injunction.  However, if on evidence it is shown<br \/>\nthat the Respondents had not adopted the mark prior to its use in<br \/>\nIndia by the Appellants then, undoubtedly, the trial Court would vacate<br \/>\nthe injunction.  The trial Court would undoubtedly then assess the<br \/>\ndamage which Appellants have suffered for having wrongly not been<br \/>\nallowed to use the mark for all these years.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWith these directions, the Appeal stands disposed of.  There will<br \/>\nbe no order as to costs.   The Suit stands expedited.  The trial Court is<br \/>\nrequested to dispose of the Suit as early as possible and in any case<br \/>\nwithin a period of 6 months from today.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Milmet Oftho Industries &amp; Ors vs Allergan Inc on 7 May, 2004 Author: S N Variava Bench: S. N. Variava, H. K. Sema. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5791 of 1998 PETITIONER: Milmet Oftho Industries &amp; Ors. RESPONDENT: Allergan Inc. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/05\/2004 BENCH: S. N. VARIAVA &amp; H. K. SEMA. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-230774","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Milmet Oftho Industries &amp; Ors vs Allergan Inc on 7 May, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/milmet-oftho-industries-ors-vs-allergan-inc-on-7-may-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Milmet Oftho Industries &amp; Ors vs Allergan Inc on 7 May, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/milmet-oftho-industries-ors-vs-allergan-inc-on-7-may-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-05-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-01T18:28:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/milmet-oftho-industries-ors-vs-allergan-inc-on-7-may-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/milmet-oftho-industries-ors-vs-allergan-inc-on-7-may-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Milmet Oftho Industries &amp; Ors vs Allergan Inc on 7 May, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-05-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-01T18:28:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/milmet-oftho-industries-ors-vs-allergan-inc-on-7-may-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1693,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/milmet-oftho-industries-ors-vs-allergan-inc-on-7-may-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/milmet-oftho-industries-ors-vs-allergan-inc-on-7-may-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/milmet-oftho-industries-ors-vs-allergan-inc-on-7-may-2004\",\"name\":\"Milmet Oftho Industries &amp; Ors vs Allergan Inc on 7 May, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-05-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-01T18:28:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/milmet-oftho-industries-ors-vs-allergan-inc-on-7-may-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/milmet-oftho-industries-ors-vs-allergan-inc-on-7-may-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/milmet-oftho-industries-ors-vs-allergan-inc-on-7-may-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Milmet Oftho Industries &amp; Ors vs Allergan Inc on 7 May, 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Milmet Oftho Industries &amp; Ors vs Allergan Inc on 7 May, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/milmet-oftho-industries-ors-vs-allergan-inc-on-7-may-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Milmet Oftho Industries &amp; Ors vs Allergan Inc on 7 May, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/milmet-oftho-industries-ors-vs-allergan-inc-on-7-may-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-05-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-01T18:28:10+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/milmet-oftho-industries-ors-vs-allergan-inc-on-7-may-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/milmet-oftho-industries-ors-vs-allergan-inc-on-7-may-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Milmet Oftho Industries &amp; Ors vs Allergan Inc on 7 May, 2004","datePublished":"2004-05-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-01T18:28:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/milmet-oftho-industries-ors-vs-allergan-inc-on-7-may-2004"},"wordCount":1693,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/milmet-oftho-industries-ors-vs-allergan-inc-on-7-may-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/milmet-oftho-industries-ors-vs-allergan-inc-on-7-may-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/milmet-oftho-industries-ors-vs-allergan-inc-on-7-may-2004","name":"Milmet Oftho Industries &amp; Ors vs Allergan Inc on 7 May, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-05-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-01T18:28:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/milmet-oftho-industries-ors-vs-allergan-inc-on-7-may-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/milmet-oftho-industries-ors-vs-allergan-inc-on-7-may-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/milmet-oftho-industries-ors-vs-allergan-inc-on-7-may-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Milmet Oftho Industries &amp; Ors vs Allergan Inc on 7 May, 2004"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/230774","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=230774"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/230774\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=230774"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=230774"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=230774"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}