Back
C. HARI SHANKAR
Glaxo Group Limited – Appellant
Versus
Maiden Pharmaceuticals Limited – Respondent
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, BE
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 t....
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of deceptive similarity for trademark infringement and passing off, as well as the principles governing the grant or refusal of int....
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....
A registered trademark derived from an INN does not confer exclusive rights over descriptive names, and differences in pricing and phonetic structure reduce the likelihood of consumer confusion.
The court held that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case of infringement and granted an ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark NOVAEGIS or [IMG] in any form or m....
Phonetic similarity between AZIWOK and AZIWAKE creates likelihood of confusion, warranting injunction to prevent trademark infringement.
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....
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
