Allahabad HC: Employees of Constituent Institutions are not Entitled to Central University Benefits  ||  Calcutta High Court: Juvenile Accused Eligible to Apply for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 CrPC  ||  J&K & L HC: Departmental Proceedings Not Halted by Pending Criminal Case Without Showing Prejudice  ||  Cal HC: CESTAT Appeals Abate After Resolution Plan Success; CENVAT Reversal Requires No Pre-Deposit  ||  Bom HC: SEBI Settlement Doesn’t Protect Accused from Criminal Liability in Serious Economic Offences  ||  SC Directs States to Notify Eco-Sensitive Zones Around Tiger Reserves and Regulate Tiger Safaris  ||  SC: Its 2024 Order Letting Union Review Benami Act Cases Based on 'Ganpati Dealcom' was Incorrect  ||  SC: Rejection of Income Tax Settlement Application Doesn’t Bar Assessee from Contesting Assessment  ||  SC Informed Accessibility Facilities for Visually Impaired Candidates in AIBE and CLAT Expected Soon  ||  Supreme Court: Pendency of Writ Proceedings Does Not Bar Availing Alternative Statutory Remedies    

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