Cal. HC: WB Government Directed to Finalise Minimum Wage of Tea Plantation Workers Within Six Weeks  ||  Delhi HC: Woman Cannot be Held Liable for Her Lover Committing Suicide Due to Love Failure  ||  All. HC: Medical Report Determining Age of Victim in POCSO Cases to be Submitted to Court Promptly  ||  Concerns About Rise in Low-Quality Law Colleges Raised by Bar Council of India  ||  Appointment of Technical Assistants as Assistant Engineers in Tamil Nadu PWD Upheld by Supreme Court  ||  Committee to Examine Issues Relating to Queer Community Constituted by Central Government  ||  Karnataka High Court: Accused can’t be Morally Convicted by Trial Court in Absence of Legal Proof  ||  Supreme Court in Plea for 100% EVM-VVPAT Verification: Human Interference to Create Problems  ||  Bom HC: Person Cannot be Deprived of Right to Sleep by Recording Statements at Unearthly Hours  ||  Supreme Court: Enable E-Filing & Virtual Appearance Facilities At UP District Courts    

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 2024 - All Rights Reserved