Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

30. He further submitted that considering the nature of the products involved i.e. medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations - Scheduled H Drug, coupled with the case of the Plaintiff in the Plaint and Evidence Affidavits, the similarity if any, between the packaging / trade dress of rival products, is of no consequence to the reliefs prayed for in the present Suit. He submitted that the issue that requires adjudication is whether the Defendants' by using the wordmark POLYDERM + are infringing the Plaintiff's registered trade marks PANDERM / PANDERM+, and passing off their goods as and for those of the Plaintiff.

c. the body organ for which the drug is used (Example - Thyrox from Thyroid); or d. the stream of science to which the drug belongs (Example - ONCO-BCG from Oncology - the science of treating cancer).

38. Even in the present case the Plaintiff, and possibly the Defendants have derived their respective mark PANDERM / PANDERM+ and POLYDERM+ for their dermatological product from the stream of science to which the product belongs viz. DERMATOGLOGY. The marks involved in the present case are word marks. There is no visual or structural similarity in the Plaintiff's registered trade mark PANDERM and the Defendants' trade mark POLYDERM. Keeping aside the descriptive suffix DERM which is indicative of a dermatological product, the only similarity between the rival trade marks is the first letter in both marks i.e. "P". It is neither the Plaintiff's case, nor would it be fair to allow the Plaintiff to monopolize the suffix DERM in respect of pharmaceutical preparations. In this respect it would be important to consider the practical aspects to ascertain the possibility of confusion. As this Court has held before in cases such as the present one where a part of the rival mark is descriptive, greater regard must be paid to the uncommon element in the two marks, which in this case are PAN and POLY. The Plaintiff's trade mark consists of two Nitin 30 / 37 COMIP-32-2011-F.doc syllables as against the Defendants' trade mark which consists of three syllables. In my view, the first syllables of the rival wordmarks PANDERM and POLYDERM are sufficiently dissimilar to rule out any chance of confusion. I am of the opinion that an average consumer is unlikely to be confused between the rival trade marks since the pronunciation of the rival marks are easily distinguishable.

47. The present case is filed on the basis of infringement and passing off of the Plaintiff's wordmark PANDERM / PANDERM +. A perusal of the record endorses the submission of Mr. Kamod that the Plaintiff has neither pleaded nor claimed, let alone proved any proprietary rights in its packaging or carton or trade dress. The relevant excerpts from the Plaint and the said Affidavits in Lieu of Examination-in- Chief relied are reproduced below:

A. Plaint "16. The Plaintiff states that by using the impugned trade mark "POLYDERM+", the Defendants have been and are infringing the registered trademarks of the Plaintiff and are also likely to further pass off or enable others to pass off their products as and for those of the Plaintiff or in some way connected with the Plaintiff.