Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: unregistered trade mark in Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd vs Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd on 9 January, 2020Matching Fragments
12. At this juncture a useful reference may be made to the para 42 of the Cadila Healthcare v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals AIR 2001 SC 1952 read as under:-
"42. Broadly stated in an action for passing off on the basis of unregistered trade mark generally for deciding the question of deceptive similarity the following factors to be considered:
a) The nature of the marks i.e. whether the marks are word marks or label marks or composite marks, i.e. both words and label works.
38. Reliance was also placed on behalf of the appellant on the factors spelt out in the said verdict essentially to be taken into account deciding a similar question which is so observed in paras 42 to 44 of the said verdict, which reads to the effect : -
"42. Broadly stated in an action for passing off on the basis of unregistered trade mark generally for deciding the question of deceptive similarity the following factors to be considered:
a) The nature of the marks i.e. whether the marks are word marks or label marks or composite marks, i.e. both words and label works.
57. Inter alia the appellant submits that BEVE in BEVETEX is arbitrary; not derived from the salt Paclitaxel and that the defendant/ respondent herein having derived the impugned mark from the salt has no relevance when the question is of public interest and safety. Reliance was placed on behalf of the appellant on the verdict of this Court in Cadila Healthcare Ltd. Vs. Aureate Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. 2012 (51) PTC 585 (Del) (SJ) with specific refence to observations in paras 41,46,48-50 in which an ex parte injunction was confirmed in relation to the defendant/respondent's unregistered trade mark PANTOBLOC against the plaintiff's registered trade mark of PANTODAC with the details of the case being to the effect: