Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SAURABH BANERJEE
Mankind Pharma Limited – Appellant
Versus
Zhejiang Yige Enterprise Management Group Co. Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. importance of trademark registration and usage (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. legal grounding for trademark opposition (Para 9) |
| 3. court's analysis of similarity and consumer confusion (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. outcome of the appeal and orders (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
SAURABH BANERJEE, J.
PREFACE:
1. The appellant, has preferred the present appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, [hereinafter referred to as “TM Act] assailing the order dated 29.05.2023, [hereinafter referred to as “impugned order], passed by the learned Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, [hereinafter referred to as “respondent no.2], whereby its opposition proceedings against the registration of the impugned mark 
[hereinafter referred to as “FLORASIS”] filed under application no.4330041 in Class 5 has been dismissed.
BRIEF CONSPECTUS:
2. The appellant, Mankind Pharma Limited, a fully integrated pharmaceutical company involved in the business of manufacturing and marketing of a wide range of medicinal, pharmaceutical, veterinary preparations as also therapeutic product ranges under various brand names, including under the trademark ‘FLORA
The court established that prior trademark use confers superior rights, emphasizing that mere modifications do not distinguish similar marks, especially in the pharmaceutical industry.
The court established that the test for confusing similarity in pharmaceuticals is stringent, with prior registered marks holding superior rights that protect against consumer confusion.
The distinctiveness acquired through extensive use and global presence of a trademark should be considered in the registration process.
The Registrar of Trade Marks must give due consideration to all submissions made by applicants, and failure to do so constitutes a lack of application of mind, warranting remand for reconsideration.
The court established that prior use and the potential for public confusion are crucial in trademark registration disputes, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry.
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....
Refusal orders under Section 11(1) must reason rejection of honest concurrent use evidence under Section 12; unreasoned mechanical orders ignoring user affidavits and non-use set aside with remand.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of likelihood of confusion on the part of the public and the principle of comparing composite marks as a whole under Section 11(....
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
