Patanjali Can Use Coronil Name For Its Immunity Booster, As SC Refuse To Entertain Plea Against It

Ever since Patanjali Ayurved announced its so-called ayurvedic cure for COVID-19, Coronil in June, the Ramdev-backed company has had a tough time selling it.

Though initially, the company claimed that it had achieved full COVID-19 recovery in seven days, many have questioned the claims.

pti

Rajasthan¡¯s Health Department had served a notice to NIMS hospital seeking an explanation on conducting trials of the Coronil drug on coronavirus patients.

It also since emerged that Ayush Ministry of Uttarakhand issued a license to the company not to find a cure for coronavirus, but for the production of immunity-booster kits and fever medicine.

Since then Patanjali has changed its position and said that it never claimed to have made a medicine for coronavirus and Coronil will be marketed as an immunity booster.

pti

The troubles did not end there as the Madras High Court had slapped a fine of Rs 10 lakhs on Patanjali for commercial exploitation of the fear around COVID-19.

It had however refused to restrain Patanjali Ayurved Ltd from using the trademark 'Coronil'.

This, after a Chennai-based company Arudra Engineering Private Limited, claimed that ''Coronil'' is a trademark owned by it since 1993.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea challenging the Madras High Court decision.

A bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde said "if we prevent the use of the word "Coronil" during the pandemic on the ground that there is some pesticide on its name, it will be terrible for the first product."

patanjali

The bench, also comprising Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian, noted that matter is already listed for hearing in September before the high court.

According to Arudra Engineering Private Limited, which makes chemicals and sanitisers for heavy machineries and containment units, it has registered ''Coronil-213 SPL'' and ''Coronil-92B'' in 1993 and has been diligently renewing the trademark since then.

"Currently, our right over the trademark is valid till 2027," the company said.

Claiming that its products with the trademark have a global presence, the company said that its clients include BHEL and Indian Oil.

To substantiate its claim, the petitioner produced sales bills of the products for the past five years. "The mark adopted by Patanjali for its drugs are clearly identical to the marks registered by the company.

Though the products sold by the company are different, the use of identical trademarks would still amount to infringement of our intellectual property right, the company said.

"Permitting Patanjali to continue to use the mark will directly affect our reputation and the goodwill created over the mark for over 26 years in both international and domestic markets," the petitioner added.