Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Sun Pharma appears to have asserted before the learned Single Judge that the impugned mark, namely, ―INDAMET‖ is confusingly similar to ―ISTAMET‖ when tested on the principles of visual, structural and phonetic similarity. It was further asserted that the adoption of the impugned mark by Glenmark amounts to infringement under Sections 29 (1) and (2) of the Trade Marks Act, 19997 and would result in erosion of the distinctiveness of Sun Pharma's mark. It was further alleged that a human error in reading or construing Glenmark's mark could mislead a user into purchasing an incorrect medicine and thus have an adverse impact. Considering the likelihood of confusion on account of similarity between the two marks, Sun Pharma asserted that public interest must be accorded precedence bearing in mind the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Cadila Healthcare vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals8.