Court declines to lift seizure orders on generic drugs

The High Court has declined to lift orders for the seizure of more than 50 generic drugs owned by an Indian firm over a trademark row.

Justice Francis Gikonyo declined to quash the orders he had given earlier after Cipla Limited from India moved to court to oppose confiscation of the drugs by the Pharmacy and Poisons Board.

Justice Gikonyo issued the seizure orders on June 23 after Lords Healthcare Limited sued the manufacturer from India and Surgipham Limited, the distributor of the drugs, over a trademark breach.

Lords Healthcare, through lawyer Sammy Kariuki, argued that the drugs the two firms were selling on the local market bore its trademark.

Lords Healthcare was initially trading with Cipla before they went their separate ways. Cipla was the manufacturer of the drugs while Lords Healthcare, which had also registered the name Cipla in Kenya, was the local distributor.

However, a row erupted after the Indian firm contracted Surgipham to distribute its medicines in Kenya under Cipla.

Expert orders

Through its lawyer Evans Monari, Cipla Limited argued that it had been authorised to use the trademark in the country and refuted claims that Lords Healthcare owned the trademark.

"There was no absolutely no justification for the issuance of the said expert orders given the trademark is owned through assignment by Cipla-Medpro, which authorised the defendants to deal with the pharmaceutical products bearing the Cipla trademark in Kenya," Mr Monari told the court.

The firm argued there was also a danger of the drugs getting damaged. The court heard that there was also a case before the Registrar of Trademarks on the same.

"The seizure and impounding of Cipla's pharmaceutical products would cause substantial loss and damage as the losses per day cannot be compensated in damages," the court heard.

However, Lords Healthcare told the court that Cipla Limited had misrepresented facts to gain favour from the judge.

"No miscarriage of justice has been occasioned nor is there any likelihood of the same as the plaintiff is protecting its trademark," the judge heard.