Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
JAYANT NATH
Alkem Laboratories Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. use and registration of trademark pan marks (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments about the commonality of trademark usage (Para 11 , 12) |
| 3. admissibility of trademark evidence (Para 13) |
| 4. public domain terminology in drug naming (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. prima facie protection of the pan marks (Para 18 , 19) |
| 6. interim injunction granted against defendants (Para 20 , 21) |
| 7. conditions for existing stock sales (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
ORDER
IA Nos.13365-13367/2021(exemption)
1. Applications are allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CS(COMM) 506/2021
2. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.
3. Issue summons. Learned counsel for the defendants accepts notice.
4. Pleadings be completed within the statutory period.
IA No.13364/2021
5. This application is filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking an ex-parte interim injunction to restrain the defendants, their directors etc. from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, exporting, advertising etc. any pharmaceutical or medicinal preparation or any such allied and cognate goods under the impugned marks `Doctor PAND'/' Doctor PAN'/'Dr.Pan' or any other mark identical and/or deceptively similar to th
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 application of the deceptive similarity test in trademark cases requires heightened scrutiny when the defendant is an ex-employee of the plaintiff, emphasizing the burden to eliminate any dishone....
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 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....
Phonetic similarity between AZIWOK and AZIWAKE creates likelihood of confusion, warranting injunction to prevent trademark infringement.
The burden of proof on an ex-employee defendant in a trade mark infringement case and the relevance of uncontroverted evidence, such as the Court Commissioner's report, in establishing deceptive simi....
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....
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
