Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH
Laboratories Griffon Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Adwin Pharma – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. infringement of trademarks and market introduction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. defendants argue lack of similarity and jurisdiction. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. phonetic similarity influencing consumer confusion. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. supreme court's test for deceptive similarity. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. balance of convenience favors the plaintiff. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. lack of prima facie misrepresentation in passing off. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. confirmation of interim relief granted. (Para 17) |
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.
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.
The court found that despite phonetic similarity, the distinctiveness of trade marks and differences in intended consumer bases negate the likelihood of confusion 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.
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
