Back
AMIT BANSAL
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Cian Healthcare Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Amit Bansal, J. (Oral)
1. The present suit has been filed seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from the infringement of the trademark of the plaintiff, passing off their goods as those of the plaintiff and other ancillary reliefs.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The case set up in the plaint is as under:
2.1. The plaintiff company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sun Pharma Industries Ltd. and is engaged in the business of marketing drugs and pharmaceutical combinations in over 150 countries with 45 manufacturing sites in various countries.
2.2. The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademark "Maxgalin" bearing No. 1402291 since 29th November, 2005 and various other marks, details of which are provided in paragraph 9 of the plaint.
2.3. The "Maxgalin" mark is used by the plaintiff for its medicine used to relieve neuropathic pain. The said drug is sold in the form of tablets and is a Schedule H drug.
2.4. The trademark "Maxgalin" has also acquired goodwill and reputation due to its extensive and continuous use since 2005 and has therefore attained the status of a well-known trademark within the meaning of Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act
The central legal point established in the judgment is the protection of well-known trademarks and prevention of confusion in the market, as provided under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the protection of trademarks, the establishment of statutory and common law rights, and the imposition of costs for trademark infringement.
Trademark infringement occurs when a mark is nearly identical to a registered mark, leading to consumer confusion, especially when the defendant fails to contest the claims.
The court ruled that the defendant's use of KIMIXIDE infringes the plaintiff's registered trademark AMIXIDE, being deceptively similar and likely to cause consumer confusion.
The court upheld the protection of trademarks and issued a permanent injunction against the Defendants for trademark infringement.
Plaintiff entitled to a permanent injunction against the Defendants for trademark infringement and passing off due to the similarity in marks and packaging.
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....
Point of law: Trade mark copyright - Where there is/are a common element/elements in the marks of plaintiff and defendant which is also contained in a number of other marks in use in the same market,....
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
