Supreme Court Rejects Plea Seeking Vehicle Star-Rating System to Curb Air Pollution  ||  SC Declines to Order Disclosure of CIC Shortlisted Candidates, Sees No Reason to Doubt Union  ||  Kerala HC: “Debt Due” under Section 18(1) SARFAESI Act Includes Future Interest until Appeal Filing  ||  Kerala HC: Interim Bail Period Not Counted as ‘Detention’ for Statutory Bail under S.187 BNSS  ||  Madras HC: Cryptocurrency is Property and Can be Held in Trust  ||  NCLAT Chennai: Guarantors Cannot Deny Demand Notice After Admitting its Receipt  ||  Kerala HC: Ex-CISF Personnel can Buy Liquor from CAPF Canteens  ||  Kerala HC: Accused Can Respond Virtually or in Writing  ||  Kerala HC: No Caste or Lineage Required for Temple Priests  ||  Kerala HC Orders SIT Probe into Sabarimala Gold Loss    

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”. The Court 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 shopper.

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved