Delhi High Court: Providing Email Services Does Not Make Google a Public Functionary  ||  Patna HC: Lying on a Woman Without Any Act Toward Penetration Rules Out Attempted Rape  ||  Delhi High Court: Litigants Cannot Claim a Bench Change as a Right After Roster Changes  ||  Calcutta High Court: Peaceful Protest is a Democratic Right and Cannot Be Treated as an Offence  ||  Delhi High Court: Trial Courts Must Verify an Accused’s Address Before Declaring Absconding  ||  Gujarat High Court: Judicial Officer Cannot Seek HC Judge’s Transfer over Housing Grievance  ||  Delhi High Court Orders 125 Websites Using Jio Trademark for Lottery and Gaming to Be Suspended  ||  MP High Court Strikes Down 27% OBC Quota, Restores Reservation to 14%  ||  Supreme Court: Hindu Widow’s Limited Estate Became Absolute under Succession Act  ||  Supreme Court: Prima Facie Arbitration Agreement Requires Referral to Arbitration    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved