SC: CIRP Can Continue Despite Fraudulent Insolvency Plea That Triggered It  ||  Delhi HC: Senior Citizen May Seek Eviction of Daughter-in-Law for Ill-Treatment  ||  Delhi HC: Mere Possession of Visa Does Not Confer an Unconditional Right to Enter India  ||  Delhi HC: Every Insensitive or Objectionable Matrimonial Act Does Not Amount to Cruelty  ||  J&K&L HC: Fake Driving Licence Does Not Exonerate Insurer If Driver Has a Valid Licence  ||  P&H HC: Safety Council Report and CCTV Cannot Be Rejected at Charge Stage for Lack of Proof  ||  Delhi High Court Stays Rs. 213 Crore SAIL Payout to British Firm over Unstamped Arbitral Award  ||  Allahabad HC: Bar Council Cannot Suspend Advocate’s Licence Pending Disciplinary Inquiry  ||  SC: CIRP Need Not Be Set Aside Solely for Fraudulent Filing of Section 9 Plea  ||  Supreme Court: Compromise Decree Passed Without Impleading Necessary Party is Void    

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