Report on Lack of AC, Drinking Water and WiFi at DU Law Faculty Sought by Delhi High Court  ||  All. HC: DCP Pulled Up for Directing Further Investigation Without Leave of the Magistrate  ||  Kerala HC: Husband Acquitted u/s 304B IPC Can be Held Guilty u/s 498A IPC if Facts Permit  ||  Karnataka Prohibition of Violence Against Advocates Act, 2023 Comes Into Effect From 10th June, 2024  ||  Karnataka HC: PIL Seeking Declaration that Temples are Not Public Authorities, Dismissed  ||  Bom. HC: Karan Johar Files Suit Against Makers of the Film “Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar”  ||  Mad. HC: Bar Associations to Pay 15000 to 20,000 to Junior Lawyers Practicing in State  ||  Kerala High Court: E-Toilets to be Build for Flood Affected Tribal Families  ||  Amalgamation of Air Asia With Air India Express Approved by NCLT  ||  SC: Accused Refusing to Undergo Medical Examination Amounts to Non-Cooperation With Investigation    

In the matter of Show cause notice issued to M/s neucon pakistan ltd On complaint filed by M/s ferozons laboatories ltd - (24 Sep 2018)

There must be a representation, omission or practice that was likely to mislead consumers in case of deception

MRTP/ Competition Laws

In facts of present case, SCN was issued to Respondent pursuant to Enquiry Report concluded by Commission. Enquiry was authorized on complaint filed by Ferozsons Laboratories Limited (Complainant). Present order shall dispose of proceedings initiated vide Show Cause Notice issued by the Competition Commission of Pakistan to Neucon Pakistan (the Respondent), for prima facie contravention of provisions of Section 10 of Competition Act, 2010.

Complainant pointed out that, despite Respondent's commitment submitted to Enquiry Committee to withdraw its goods from market by 30 November 2017, Respondent had not complied with its commitment and its counterfeits were still available in market. It was case of Complainant that, Respondent had adopted identical or virtually identical trademarks "BYQFREEZ" and subsequently "NEUFREEZ" and associated trade dress e colour(s) green and light blue as a feature of the mark, with dishonest intention. Respondent had committed acts of infringement in adopting and using the al trademark and trade dress in respect of similar medicines/pharmaceutical preparations.

For deception to occur, there must be a representation, omission or practice that was likely to mislead consumers. Advertising statements, disclosures, disclaimers or point of sale representations, were points where consumer first contacts between a seller and buyers. Whether or not a consumer buys a product was immaterial. The law might still be violated. Thus, a practice was material, there was likelihood of consumer deception because it was presumed that, consumer might have chosen differently or made a different purchasing decision but for deception. Performance Health, USA already had registered its trademark "BIOFREEZE" in 2002 in Pakistan and had successfully renewed it for a further period of ten years from 28 August 2009.

Since, its registration Performance Health had been commercially exploiting its trademark by way of export, distribution, marketing and sale of "BIOFREEZE" labelled products in Pakistan. At present, Complainant was sole licensor and authorized distributor of "BIOFREEZE" products of Health Performance in Pakistan. Therefore, registration of Trademark "BIOFREEZ" in favour of Complainant was valid. Consequently, Complainant, held valid right to initiate action(s) against imitators of its trademark and labelling and packaging under clause (d), sub-section (2) of Section 10 of Act.

Complainant had proved beyond doubt that, it was registered proprietor and right-holder of trademark "BIOFREEZE" as well as trade dress i.e. green and light blue labelling and packaging of the products in question. Hence, it had exclusive right to use the trademark including trade dress of "BIOFREEZE". By adoption of an identical trademark i.e. "BYQFREEZ" and trade dress — overall getup, Respondent had contravened clause (d) of sub-section 2 of Section 10 read with sub-section (1) of Section 10 of Act. Commission imposed penalty on Respondent and restrained them from using impugned marks "BYQFREEZ" or any other mark with any prefix or suffix and trade dress that was phonetically, visually and constructively similar as that of Complainant mark "BIOFREEZE" and its trade dress.

Tags : TRADEMARK   INFRINGEMENT   DECEPTIVE MARKETING  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved