IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Asha Menon, J.
FDC Limited – Plaintiff
Versus
TAS MED (India) Private Limited and Anr. - Defendants
CS (COMM) 269 of 2021
Decided On : 13-12-2021
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 – Section 151 - Ad-interim order of injunction - Infringement of trademark “CINZAN” - Passing off - Present suit against defendant No. 1 alleging infringement by it of trademark “CINZAN”, registered in name of plaintiff in respect of its product launched in 1989 - Product sold under trademark and brand name of “CINZAN” is used to treat motion sickness, nausea due to motion sickness, vertigo or Meniere’s disease - Plaintiff claims that “CINZAN” has met with a remarkable success and currently holds a prominent market share - Plaintiff had obtained trademark registration for word mark “CINZAN” w.e.f. 6th October, 1987, which is valid and subsisting - Plaintiff claims to have also spent more than Rs.15 lakhs on promotional activities to popularize products under the trademark “CINZAN” details of sales figure have been mentioned in para No. 10 of plaint to show performance of product “CINZAN”.
Finding of the court : A second attempt by defendants to infringe trademark of plaintiff, mere accounting for sales of product of defendants will not suffice, as ‘irreparable loss and injury’ would be caused to plaintiff due to dilution. The products are for same illness. The deceptive similarity will lead to confusion. It may also appear, as argued, to be a variation of plaintiff’s own product, with consequences that could be adverse to plaintiff - The ‘balance of convenience’ also lies in favour of the plaintiff, who has been producing product in name of “CINZAN” since 1989, whereas, admittedly, defendants have only proposed to use their mark “CINZITAS” in their reply dated 23rd December, 2020 to the legal notice of plaintiff and have yet to commence manufacturing of their product in the name of “CINZITAS” - Restraining the defendants, its directors, principal officers, partners, servants, representatives and agents or any of them, till the disposal of suit, from manufacturing, marketing or selling pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations under the mark “CINZITAS”.
Result : Application disposed of
ORDER :
I.A. 7214/2021 (by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC for an ad-interim order of injunction)
1. This order will dispose of the application filed by the plaintiff seeking interim prayers of the following nature: -
b. Restraining the Defendant, its directors, principal officers, partners, servants, representatives and agents or any of them, from manufacturing, marketing or selling pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations under the mark CINZINE, CINZITAS or any deceptively similar variant of the Plaintiff’s registered trademark CINZAN or in any manner whatsoever, thereby passing off their pharmaceutical products as those of the Plaintiff;
c. That the above order may be granted ex-parte;
d. Any further order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper facts and circumstances of the present case may also be passed in favour of the Plaintiff.”
2. The plaintiff/FDC Limited is a company incorporated on 23rd September, 1940 under the name of the ‘Fairdeal Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd., with its registered office at B-8, MIDC Waluj, District Aurangabad 431136, Maharashtra with a Delhi Branch Office at A-41, Phase-I, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi-110020. Subsequently, on 24th June, 1985, the plaintiff’s name was changed to ‘FDC Private Limited’ and a fresh Certificate of Incorporation was issued on 2nd May, 1986. It is stated that the plaintiff had commenced operations much before its incorporation, in the year 1936, marketing vitamins and a range of prescription formulations. It set up its first manufacturing facility in the year 1949. In 1963, the plaintiff claims to have become the first organization to start the manufacture of specialized ophthalmic formulations in India and the first to introduce the BFS (Blow-Fill-Seal) technology for ophthalmics in South East Asia. In 1972, the plaintiff pioneered the concept of Oral Rehydration Salts (ORS) under its iconic brand ‘Electral’. It has a distinct presence in numerous therapeutic segments such as anti-infective, dermatological, respiratory, hematinic and claims to be the undisputed leader in ORS and ophthalmic. It has 6 manufacturing facilities in India with several distribution centers across the country and it is also available on leading e-commerce pharmacy stores, such as, PharmEasy, 1MG, Apollo Pharmacy, Netmeds etc.. It has four separate R&D Laboratories for formulations and food products, Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API), biotech and genetic research. It has also received the “National Award for R&D effort in the industry” by the Department of Scientific Affairs, Ministry of Commerce, Government of India for its contribution in the development of Flurbiprofen and Timolol Maleate. The plaintiff claims to have an annual turnover of Rs.1,331 crores (approx.) in the year 2019-2020.
3. The present suit has been filed against the defendant No.1 alleging infringement by it of trademark “CINZAN”, registered in the name of the plaintiff in respect of its product launched in 1989. The product sold under the trademark and brand name of “CINZAN” is used to treat motion sickness, nausea due to motion sickness, vertigo or Meniere’s disease. The plaintiff claims that “CINZAN” has met with a remarkable success and currently holds a prominent market share. The plaintiff had obtained trademark registration for the word mark “CINZAN” w.e.f. 6th October, 1987, which is valid and subsisting. The plaintiff claims to have also spent more than Rs.15 lakhs on promotional activities to popularize the products under the trademark “CINZAN”
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.
[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....
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....
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 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....
The court emphasized that the likelihood of confusion due to phonetic, visual, and structural similarities between registered trademarks is critical, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry, warr....
Concealment of material facts can lead to the grant of an ad-interim injunction and dismissal of applications for cancellation of trademark registration.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the defendant's use of 'NOVAKIND Biosciences Pvt Ltd' as a trade mark for pharmaceutical products constituted infringement under Section 29(2)....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Trade Marks Act in determining deceptive similarity and infringement of a registered trade mark, including the presumption o....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.