MUMBAI: The Bombay high court ordered a pharmaceutical company accused of trademark infringement to shell out Rs 1.5 crore as legal costs, which must be donated to the Kerala Chief Minister's Distress Relief Fund.“Considering the catastrophe that has hit Kerala recently and the fact that the flood situation is a ‘disaster of a serious nature’ which has been categorized as L3 level of disaster by the National Disaster Management Guidelines, the (company) should pay costs of Rs 1.5 crore as a donation to the Kerala Chief Minister Distress Relief Fund,” said Justice Shahrukh Kanthawalla. The court was hearing a petition filed by Glenmark Pharmaceuticals against Galpha Laboratories for infringing their trademark.Galpha was accused of copying the art work, colour scheme, font style, manner of writing and trade dress that refers to the visual appearance of one of Glenmark’s products.“It is clear that Galpha is not only indulging in infringing activities by repeatedly copying brands of other companies but also appears to be in complete violation of the FDA regulations,” said the judge, adding that the company seemed to be a habitual offender. "Drugs are not sweets. Pharmaceutical companies which provide medicines for the health of the consumers have a special duty of care towards them. These companies, in fact, have a greater responsibility towards the general public. However, nowadays, the corporate and financial goals of such companies cloud the decisions of its executives whose decisions are incentivised by profits, more often than not, at the cost of public health. This case is a perfect example of just that,” the judge said.Galpha admitted its mistake and said that it would submit to the orders of the court to end the dispute. In the past 10 years, it had sold drugs worth over Rs 2.9 crore bearing the infringed trademark. The court said while it is usually lenient when the party admits to their error, it was not willing to be sympathetic in the present case. “This is a case where the conduct of the company is not only dishonest but also audacious and such which displays no regards to the authority/rule of law,” said the judge. “I am of the opinion that had this company been imposed with exemplary costs at the very beginning of their infringing activities, they would not have been audacious in repeating it. I also feel that this is a fit case where directions should be issued to various enforcement agencies to look into the affairs of the company. No party should ever be under an impression that they can get away every time from the clutches of the law despite being involved in these kinds of activities,” said the court.