Back
C. HARI SHANKAR
Bhargava Phytolab Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Ldd Bioscience Private Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT
I.A. 10923/2023 [under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC]
1. The plaintiff asserts its registered trademark TUMORIN. The mark stands registered in the plaintiff's favour with effect from 18 February 2011 in Class 5. Under the said mark, the plaintiff manufactures and sells homeopathic preparations intended to cure benign growths. Mr. Varun Singh, learned Counsel for the plaintiff candidly acknowledges that, though, while applying for registration of the mark TUMORIN, the plaintiff had claimed that the mark was in use by his predecessor in interest since 1 March 2010, there is, in fact, no actual evidence of such use forthcoming on record. The plaint, however, does annex invoices evidencing use of TUMORIN by the plaintiff at least with effect from 4 April 2018. Mr. Varun Singh has also drawn my attention to a certificate dated 22 May 2023, issued by the plaintiff's Chartered Accountant, certifying that even in the financial year 2019-20, the returns from sales of TUMORIN exceeded Rs. 2 crores.
2. Mr. Varun Singh submits that the defendant is using a deceptively similar mark TUMOTIN for homeopathic preparations which are aimed at curing similar ailments. He also points out t
The court found that despite phonetic similarity, the distinctiveness of trade marks and differences in intended consumer bases negate the likelihood of confusion and passing off.
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 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 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....
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....
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
