Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(b) AIR 1963 449 Amritdhara Pharmacy vs. Satyadev Gupta the Apex court has held that the trade mark Amritdhara and Laxmandhara are closely similar to each other.

(c) 2006(33) PTC 157 Remidex Pharma Pvt Ltd vs.Sarita Pharmaceuticals where the marks ZEVIT and EVIT are held to be deceptively similar and the court granted the injunction in favour of the plaintiff.

(d) 2005(3) PTC 14 Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd vs. Wyeth Holdings Corporation & Anr where the marks Parkitane and Pacitane were held to be deceptively similar.

(e) 2004 (28) PTC 456 (Del) Pifzer Ireland Pharmaceuticals vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals & Anr where the marks Lipitor and Lipicor were held to be deceptively similar.

(f) 2003 (27) PTC 525 (Del) Sanat Products Ltd vs. Glade Drugs & Nutracenticals Pvt Ltd & Anr where the marks Reform and Refirm were held to be deceptively similar.

(g) 2002 (25) PTC 592 (Bom) (DB) Medley Laboratories Pvt Ltd, Mumbai &Anr vs. Alkem Laboratories Ltd where the marks Spoxin and Supaxin were held to be deceptively similar.

(h) 2002 (25) PTC 482 (Del) Smithkline Pharma (India)Ltd & Ors vs. Prakash Setia & Ors where the marks Alben and Aben were held to be deceptively similar.

(i) 1996 PTC (16) Del, Ciba Geigy Ltd vs. Crosslands Research Laboratories Ltd where the marks Voltaren and Volta-K where held to be deceptively similar.

"The products of the parties are medicinal and applicant's product is contraindicated for the disease for which opposer's product is indicated. It is apparent that confusion or mistake in filling a prescription for either product could produce harmful effects. Under such circumstances, it is necessary for obvious reasons, to avoid confusion or mistake in the dispensing of the pharmaceuticals."

23. The other argument of the counsel for the defendant that the plaintiff‟s product is available in tablets and oral suspension form and the defendant‟s product is available in injection form has also no force as it has been seen from experience of the pharmaceuticals products available in all over the world that most of the companies are making pharmaceuticals products in both the forms i.e. tablets as well as in injection form under the same trade mark. As per well settled law, the actual confusion and deception is not required in order to prove the case of passing off even if the defendant has adopted the mark innocently and the court comes to the conclusion that the two trade marks are deceptively similar, injunction under the said circumstances has to be granted. Actual deception is not required in an action of passing off. Century Traders vs. Roshan Lal Duggar & Co., AIR 1978 (Del) 250. Therefore there is no chance of confusion and deception.