Back
ABDUL QUDDHOSE
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited – Appellant
Versus
Kivi Labs Ltd, Gujarat – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of trademark registration and claims of prior use. (Para 1) |
| 2. plaintiff's exclusive use of trademark amixide established. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 9) |
| 3. defendant's trademark kimixide is deceptively similar. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. claims of confusion and deception due to similarity of marks. (Para 14) |
| 5. defendant claims specific ingredients justify kimixide. (Para 21 , 22 , 28) |
| 6. plaintiff argues against defendant’s claim of good faith. (Para 25 , 36) |
| 7. legal principles for trademark infringement established. (Para 37 , 40 , 50 , 51) |
| 8. court concludes on trademark infringement and passing off. (Para 62 , 68 , 69) |
| 9. the importance of preventing public confusion in the pharmaceutical domain. (Para 64 , 70) |
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the ORIGINAL SIDE RULES and Order VII Rule 1 of the C.P.C. read with Sections 27 , 28, 29, 134 and 135 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 for the following reliefs:
(a) A permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, its distributors, stockists, servants, agents, retailers, legal representatives, job-workers, manufacturers or any other person claiming under it from in any manner manufacturing, selling,
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 established that in cases involving medicinal products, the threshold for proving deceptive similarity is lower due to the potential health risks associated with consumer confusion. The co....
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....
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 court ruled on trademark infringement, emphasizing phonetic and visual similarity between ISITE and EYESITE, resulting in consumer confusion, leading to a permanent injunction against the infring....
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
