The main legal point established is that an intent to copy the plaintiff's mark, phonetic similarity, and the use of abbreviations in pharmaceutical product names are crucial factors in determining trademark infringement.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

I.A. 2642/2023 (Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC)

1. The plaintiff asserts the marks BETNESOL and BETNOVATE, which stand registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 in its favour with effect from 21st February 1961 and 5th December 1963 respectively.

2. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant, by using the marks BETASON, BETNOMAID and MEDNOVATE, is infringing the aforesaid registered trademarks of the plaintiff, within the meaning of Section 29(2)(b)¹ [29. Infringement of registered trade marks.-- ***** (2) A registered trade mark is infringed by a person who, not being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which because of-- ***** (b) its similarity to the registered trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by such registered trade mark; ***** R<> is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public, or which is likely to have an association with the registered trade mark] of the Trade Marks Act.

3. The active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) in all these five products, it may be noted is betamethasone. BETNESOL contains betamethasone alone, whereas BETASON, BETNOVATE, BETNOMAID and MEDNOVATE contain betamethasone with neomycin. Betamethasone is a corticosteroid.

4. BETNOVATE, BETNOMAID and MEDNOVATE are skin creams, though BETNOMAID is also available in the form of eye/ear drops. BETNESOL and BETASON are dispensed as tablets and as eye and ear drops.

Rival Contentions

5. Petitioner`s submissions

5.1. Mr. Urfee Roomi, learned Counsel for the plaintiff, submitted that the defendant`s marks BETASON, BETNOMAID and MEDNOVATE are phonetically similar to the plaintiff`s corresponding marks BETNESOL and BETNOVATE. He submits that, owing to the common letters "BET" and "SO", the names BETASON and BETNESOL are phonetically similar. He also relies, in this context, that on the fact that each of these words comprises three syllables and that the first syllable is the same, i.e. "BET" and the third syllable in each of the words "SON" and "SOL" are phonetically similar.

5.2. Apropos the defendant`s marks BETNOMAID and MEDNOVATE, Mr. Roomi submits that the defendant has, craftily, as he would put it, dissected the plaintiff`s BETNOVATE mark and used the first five letters of the mark i.e. "BETNO", as the first five letters of the mark BETNOMAID and the last six letters of the mark "NOVATE" as the last six letters of the mark MEDNOVATE. BETNOMAID and MEDNOVATE contain the same chemical constituents as BETNOVATE, i.e. betamethasone and neomycin and, in thus partly copying the plaintiff`s BETNOVATE mark in one and partly in another, Mr. Roomi submits that bad faith on the part of the defendant is transparently apparent.

5.3. As the products in question are pharmaceutical preparations, Mr. Roomi submits that his client is entitled to an interlocutory injunction against the use, by the defendant, of the impugned BETASON, BETNOMAID and MEDNOVATE marks, pending disposal of the suit.

6. Defendant`s submissions in reply and findings thereon

6.1. Preliminary objections:

6.1.1. Responding to the submissions of Mr. Roomi, Mr. Inderdeep Singh on behalf of the defendant raised a preliminary objection based on the Power of Attorney that the plaintiff has placed on record, which authorises the plaintiff to institute the plaint. He submits that the authorization granted to the plaintiff to sue the defendant Maiden Pharmaceuticals Limited refers only to the plaintiff`s marks BETNESOL and BETNOVATE and makes no reference to the defendant`s marks. The relevant paras 1 and 2 of the said authorisation may be reproduced thus.

"1. To represent the Company in civil proceedings, including appeals, instituted by the Company against Maiden Pharmaceuticals Limited (hereinafter "MPL"), a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and any other individuals, companies or entities that are related or affiliated to the aboveno