Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH
Laboratories Griffon Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Adwin Pharma – Respondent
ORDER :
Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
FACTUAL MATRIX :
1. This is an action for infringement of trade mark, copyright and passing-off. The Interim Application seeks to restrain the Respondent from using the trade mark “ELGIMET”, “ELGIMET-SR 1/500” and “ELGIMET-SR 2/500” or any other identical or deceptively similar mark as that of the Plaintiff’s trade mark “GLIMET” and “GLIMET DS” and from passing off the Defendant’s product as that of the Plaintiff. By order of 4th September, 2024, an ex-parte ad-interim relief was granted in respect of infringement of trade mark and Court Receiver came to be appointed. Upon service, the Defendants caused appearance. The submission of learned counsel appearing for Defendant No. 1- manufacturer is that Defendant No. 1 intends to settle the dispute amicably with the Plaintiff and hence, no submissions are advanced to oppose the interim relief. Learned counsel appearing for Defendant No. 2 submits that Written Statement has been filed and the same may be treated as Affidavit-in-reply.
2. The Plaintiffs came with the case of the 1st Plaintiff being incorporated in the year 1947 for carrying on business of manufacturing and marketing of medicinal preparation.
The court affirmed that even slight phonetic and structural similarities between rival trade marks in the pharmaceutical industry can lead to confusion among consumers, warranting protection under tr....
[The court established that in cases involving medicinal products, the threshold for proving deceptive similarity is lower due to the potential health risks associated with consumer confusion. The co....
The court ruled that the marks 'RACIRAFT' and 'EsiRaft' are not deceptively similar, thus denying the plaintiff's claim for trade mark infringement and passing off.
Pharmaceutical trademarks with shared descriptive suffix deceptively similar if phonetically alike when viewed as wholes; injunction on prima facie possibility of confusion mandatory, applying strict....
The use of the impugned marks EYESITE/Fig.2 and KL (Label) by the Defendants is likely to cause confusion and deception, thereby constituting infringement of the Plaintiffs' registered trademarks und....
The court established that the test for confusing similarity in pharmaceuticals is stringent, with prior registered marks holding superior rights that protect against consumer confusion.
The burden of proof on an ex-employee defendant in a trade mark infringement case and the relevance of uncontroverted evidence, such as the Court Commissioner's report, in establishing deceptive simi....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
