Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BHARATI DANGRE, MANJUSHA DESHPANDE
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Meghmani Lifesciences Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
BHARATI DANGRE, J.
1 Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, Appellant/Plaintiff , a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, is engaged in the business of manufacturing, trading, marketing, selling and/or distributing medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations. It claims to be number one pharma company in India with 8.3% market share and ranked no.1 by prescription with 12 different classes of doctors. The Plaintiff’s products claim to have the hallmark of technology-based differentiation covering full range of dosage forms including tablets, capsules, injectables, inhalers, ointments, creams and liquids as it offer comprehensive product portfolio across various therapeutic segments.
According to Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, it owns large Intellectual Property portfolio containing various well- known, distinctive and coined trademarks in relation to its medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations and one such mark which it claim has honestly, independently and bonafidely coined, conceived and adopted is the trademark ‘RACIRAFT’ in January, 2022. It is the claim of the Appellant that the said trademark was coined by combining the words ‘RACI’ (mi
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 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 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.
Phonetic similarity between AZIWOK and AZIWAKE creates likelihood of confusion, warranting injunction to prevent trademark infringement.
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 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....
The court ruled on trademark infringement, emphasizing phonetic and visual similarity between ISITE and EYESITE, resulting in consumer confusion, leading to a permanent injunction against the infring....
Point of Law : The use of the mark “CINZITAS” would also create confusion, as there was a possibility of people mistaking the defendants’ product to be that of the plaintiff.
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
