Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15.2. Plaintiff has garnered substantial goodwill and reputation in the market on account of promotion and continuous use of the 'SUMO'/ 'SUMO family of marks'. The details of the annual sales figures and promotional expenses are provided at paragraph 12 in the plaint. 15.3. In July, 2021, Plaintiff came across a product, "ZUMO Nimesulide and Paracetamol" tablets [hereinafter "impugned product"] being sold by Defendants, bearing the mark "ZUMO" [hereinafter "impugned mark"] which is nearly identical/ deceptively similar to Plaintiff's mark "SUMO".

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/09/2023 at 06:29:11 Further, the trade dress of impugned product substantially reproduces the unique and distinctive artistic work on the blister strip of Plaintiff's said product which is evident from the colour scheme, layout, arrangement of features, blister strip packaging etc. Both the medicines, sold by Plaintiff and Defendants, contain the same ingredients i.e., Nimesulide and Paracetamol, and are prescribed as painkillers to patients. 15.4. Defendant No. 1, Scott Edil Pharmacia Ltd. is the manufacturer and marketer of the impugned products and Defendant No. 2, Scott-Edil Advance Research Laboratories, is involved in the research and manufacture of the said products in collusion with Defendant No. 1. 15.5. Defendant No. 1 has filed two applications for registration of the impugned mark in class 5,2 claiming user since 27th August, 2008, which have been opposed by Plaintiff before the Trademarks Registry. In the counter statement to the opposition, Defendant No. 1 has not substantiated the aforenoted user claim.

16. The Court has considered the aforenoted contentions. Defendants' "ZUMO" mark is structurally and phonetically similar to Plaintiff's registered "SUMO" mark. Merely the letter "S" has been replaced to the letter "Z" in "ZUMO", which is deceptively and confusingly similar to the Plaintiff's mark and thus, amounts to infringement. On a comparison of the packaging, it appears that Defendants have also imitated the distinctive features of Plaintiff's trade dress in the impugned products. On the back side of the blister strip of the impugned product, the stylised red rectangular strip contains a trapezoidal shaped figure as well as the word "ZUMO", as is also on the Plaintiff's product. The phrase, "Nimesulide and Paracetamol Tablets" is also positioned above the said strip, in the same manner as Plaintiff's product. Moreover, both products have the same golden-coloured rectangular blister strip. Further, the fact that both products comprise of the same ingredient catalyses the likelihood of confusion and is detrimental to Plaintiff's reputation and goodwill, in relation to the said SUMO family of marks.