Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ARIF S. DOCTOR
IPCA Laboratories Limited – Appellant
Versus
Anrose Pharma – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
1. This present suit is instituted for infringement of trade mark combined with a cause of action of passing off. The Plaintiff in the present suit is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1913, having its registered office at the address mentioned in the cause title of the Plaint. The Plaint seeks a permanent injunction to restrain the Defendant from infringing the Plaintiff’s registered trade mark ZERODOL and from using the trade mark ZEROVOL–P (“impugned mark”) to pass off the Defendant’s goods as those of the Plaintiff.
2. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the impugned mark is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s registered trade mark ZERODOL and that both the marks are used in relation to the same goods, i.e. pain relief and/or pain management, medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations.
3. By an Order dated 29th October 2013, this Court granted ex-parte ad- interim reliefs in respect of infringement of trade mark. Thereafter, this Court, by an order dated 21st November 2013, granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent. On 9th December 2013, this Court confirmed the ad-interim order dated 29th October 2013 in favour of the Plai
The court confirmed that the use of a deceitfully similar trademark ZEROVOL-P infringes the registered trademark ZERODOL, establishing liability for 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.
Registered trademark owners are entitled to prevent unauthorized use that is likely to confuse consumers, establishing a right to seek injunction and damages for infringement and passing off.
The judgment establishes the principle that phonetic similarity between trademarks can constitute infringement, and lack of a credible defense can lead to summary judgment in trademark cases.
The Court ruled that the Plaintiff's registered marks were infringed by the Defendant's use of a similar mark, establishing likelihood of confusion and passing off under trade mark law.
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
