Supreme Court: Registered Sale Deed Carries Strong Presumption of Genuineness  ||  SC: Registry Cannot Intrude Into Judiciary’s Exclusive Domain By Questioning Why a Party is Impleaded  ||  Calcutta HC: Third-Party Suits in a Deity’s Name are Allowed Only When The Sebait Loses Authority  ||  Madras HC: Encroachment on a Public Street Cannot be Allowed Even If It Has a Religious Character  ||  Karnataka HC: Bike Taxi Business Protected under Article 19(1)(G); State Can Regulate But Not Ban  ||  Allahabad HC: Not Specifying Arrest Grounds in Memo is Dereliction; Erring Cops Must be Suspended  ||  Del. HC Stresses Mandatory Legal Assistance to Preserve Fairness and Integrity of Criminal Trials  ||  Supreme Court: Delhi High Court Ruling upheld on Taekwondo National Sports Federation Recognition  ||  SC: Blockchain-Based Digitisation of Land Records Necessary to Reduce Property Document Litigation  ||  Supreme Court to NCLT : Limit Power to Decide Intellectual Property Title Disputes under IBC    

Lupin Limited v. Eris Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. - (High Court of Bombay) (23 Dec 2015)

Trade mark ruling eases Lupin’s pressure

MANU/MH/3536/2015

Intellectual Property Rights

Bombay High Court granted a motion in favour of Lupin Limited, maker of ‘Nebistar’ line of medicines. It determined Lupin’s registered mark and ‘Nebistol’, manufactured by the Defendants, had “phonetic, visual and structural similarity”. It rejected Defendants’ submission that ‘-star’ and ‘-stol’ were distinct, making the marks themselves dissimilar. The Court reiterated that under the principles of comparison laid down, the question of deceptive similarity would be based on the average intelligence and imperfect recollection of an unwary purchaser. Both marks would have to be looked at in totality, and within the auspices of imperfect pronunciation, arising out of imperfect recollection and other fallibilities of the shpper.

Relevant : Durga Dutta Sharma v. Navaratna Pharma MANU/SC/0197/1964 Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta MANU/SC/0256/1962 Section 11 Trade Marks Act, 1999

Tags : TRADE MARK   DIVISIBILITY   COMPARISON   PRONUNCIATION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved