Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

c) The defendant‟s logo is deceptively similar to the plaintiff‟s
d) Despite carrying on its regular course of business from Delhi, the carton of the defendant‟s products contain the address of Ameerpet, Hyderabad; the same area where the plaintiff carries on business.
e) The defendant‟s drug, OMRE is deceptively similar to the plaintiff‟s drug OMEZ, which is a leading brand of Omeprazole in India. The get-up of the defendant‟s packaging is also similar to the plaintiff‟s.
4. Whether the plaintiff is the proprietor of the copyright in the logo as described in paragraph 9 of the plaint? If yes, whether the use of the logo by the defendant is substantially similar to the logo of the plaintiff as described in paragraph 9 of the plaint, amounting to infringement of the said copyright? OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff is the proprietor of the copyright in the get-up, lay-out and colour combination of its OMEZ strips as described in paragraph 15(iv) of the plaint? If yes, whether the use of a get-up, lay-out and colour combination by the defendants on its medical products, bearing the trademark OMRE, amounts to infringement of the copyright that vests with the plaintiff in its OMEZ strips as described in paragraph 15(iv) of the plaint? OPP

36.Placitum (a) to (d) of the test in the Cadila Case (supra) pertain to the nature of marks (word mark, label mark, etc.), degree of resemblance, nature of goods and the similarity in its character and performance. In the instant case, the rival trademarks are both word marks containing the operative term "REDDY". The plaintiff‟s trademark is "Dr. REDDY‟s" while the defendant is using only the term "REDDY" followed by the word "Pharmaceuticals" as subscript. There is no doubt that they are phonetically similar to the extent that they are identical and are also used for the same nature of goods i.e. medicinal products under Class 05 of the Act. Moreover, the drugs for which the rival marks are used are also similar in composition. For instance, the plaintiff‟s OMEZ and the defendant‟s OMRE both contain Omeprazole. Therefore, it is apparent to me that placitum

58.A specimen of the defendant‟s OMRE strip is also placed on record as EX. D2. Upon a visual comparison, it is seen that the defendant‟s packaging is also made up of silver foil with the name OMRE written in pink (magenta) colour. Right above the trademark OMRE, the words „Omeprazole Capsules I.P.‟ is printed in black. Towards the left side of the trademark, appear directions for consumption of the drug, followed by storage and dosage instruction along with the "warning" box, similar to that of the plaintiff‟s. Towards the right side of the trademark OMRE appears the defendant‟s trading name, REDDY, followed by the address of the defendant, at Ameerpet, Hyderabad. It is also seen, that the defendant‟s strip also contains a logo of a stomach enclosed within a pink (magenta) square, similar to that of the plaintiff‟s strip. From an overall visual comparison, I am of the opinion that the get-up, lay-put and colour combination of the defendant‟s drug OMRE is in infringement of the plaintiff‟s copyright over its OMEZ strip. Hence, Issue No .5 is decided accordingly in favour of the plaintiff.