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    

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited v. Cadila Healthcare Ltd. and ors. - (High Court of Madras) (03 Jun 2016)

Medicinal products should be clearly distinguishable

MANU/TN/0970/2016

Intellectual Property Rights

Public interest supports a lesser degree of proof showing confusing similarity in trade mark, even if two medicinal products are not identical or of the same chemical nature.

The petition, brought by Sun Pharmaceuticals, sought injunction against Cadila Healthcare’s use of the mark, ‘Venz’, which it claimed to be phonetically, visually and structurally similar to ‘Veniz’.

Sun Pharmaceuticals registered ‘Veniz’ for use medicines used in the treatment of depressive and psychotic disorders, in 2000. However, registration was limited solely to that word, and Sun was prevented from exclusive use of the word and any suffixes.

Granting injunction against Cadila’s use of ‘Venz' and similar marks, the court noted “drugs are poisons, not sweets”, and confusion between medicinal products would be life threatening. It added, “the frailty of human nature and the pressures placed by society on doctors, there should be as many clear indicators as possible to distinguish two medicinal products.”

Relevant : Beiersdorf A.G. vs. Ajay Sukhwani and Anr. MANU/DE/1631/2008 Cadila Health Care Ltd. vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. MANU/SC/0199/2001 Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. vs. M. Hussain & Ors. MANU/DE/2306/2013

Tags : PHARMACEUTICAL   TRADE MARK   CONFUSING SIMILARITY   DRUG NAMES  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved