Back
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Sanofi India Limited – Appellant
Versus
Saint Michael Biotech – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 161/2023 & CS(COMM) 348/2023
2. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff-Sanofi India Limited, seeking permanent injunction against the Defendants, restraining them from using the marks `COMFLAM/COMFLAM+' and `CONIFLAM', as also any mark which is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's mark `COMBIFLAM'.
3. The Plaintiff's mark `COMBIFLAM' bearing no. 426051 is registered under class 5 for `medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations', is a well- known analgesic and anti-inflammatory tablet adopted in the year 1984 with respect to a combination of `Ibuprofen' and `Paracetamol' tablets.
4. It is averred that the Defendants in the present case are also engaged in identical business of manufacturing and selling pharmaceutical and medical preparations under the mark `COMFLAM' bearing registration number 1052537 under class 5.
5. Vide order dated 10th July, 2023, Defendants had agreed not to use the mark `CONIFLAM'. As per the last order dated 24th November, 2023 the Court injuncted the use of the mark `COMFLAM' and the accompanying packing, in respect of pharmaceutical preparations.
The court upheld the protection of trademarks and issued a permanent injunction against the Defendants for trademark infringement.
Registered trademarks are protected against similar marks that may cause consumer confusion, justifying injunctions for infringement and passing off.
Trademark infringement and passing off established due to deceptive similarity in marks.
Plaintiff entitled to a permanent injunction against the Defendants for trademark infringement and passing off due to the similarity in marks and packaging.
Court ruled that habitual infringement of trademarks in pharmaceuticals demands strict judicial action, including severe penalties and compliance oversight.
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.
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 central legal point established is the protection of registered trademarks and the grant of permanent injunction against trademark infringement.
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
