Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (1.37 seconds)
Documents citing Wyeth Holdings Corporation And Anr. vs Burnet Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) Ltd. on 25 January, 2008

Charak Pharma Pvt. Ltd vs Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd on 21 January, 2014

The said certificate furnishes sales figures of October 2009 much after the date when the cause of action arose in 2006. Thus, the condition as laid down by this Court in the case of Wyeth Holdings Corporation & Anr. (supra) that evidence of ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2014 23:08:52 ::: KPPNair 29 NMSL 2529 of 2007 extensive sales must be of the period when the cause of action arose, is not fulfilled and complied with. The said sales figures are therefore irrelevant. The said statement lists out various items. Most items disclose nil sales. Most of the marks in which some sale is disclosed are primarily with "NOVA" as a prefix. The primary sales are for products such as "NOVALGIN", "NOVAMAX", "NOVACLAV" which use "NOVA" as a prefix. By no stretch of reasoning, the presence of such marks in the market would enable a consumer to discern and distinguish between "EVANOVA"
Bombay High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 8 - S J Kathawalla - Full Document

Schering Corporation & Ors. vs Alkem Laboratories Ltd. on 1 December, 2009

70. Similarly, in Wyeth Holdings (supra) while considering whether the mark ―FOLV' of the defendant was deceptively similar to the mark ‗FOLVITE' of the plaintiff, the court held that the two competing marks have to be considered as a whole. The structure of the mark visually and phonetically must be borne in mind. The image that the court must have is that of the quintessential common man. It was held: "when the Judge looks at phonetics, the sound which accompanies the pronunciation of the mark is the sound of the mark to an ordinary purchaser bereft of the niceties of language." Neither the term ‗FOL' derived from ‗FOLIC ACID'; nor the term ‗VITE' derived from ‗VITAMIN' were treated as being the proprietary of the plaintiff and that was not the basis of the said decision.
Delhi High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 34 - V Sanghi - Full Document

Sms Formulations Private Limited vs Sahib Singh Agencies (Bom.) Limited on 10 August, 2012

In a case of Wyeth Holdings Corporation & Anr. v. Burnet Pharmaceutial (Pvt.) Ltd. (supra), the learned single Judge of this Court was considering the case of the plaintiff wherein plaintiff alleged infringement of its trademark "FOLVITE" in class-5. The defendant was earlier using the mark FOLCACID which was subsequently changed to FOLV. The learned Judge observed thus:
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - B R Gavai - Full Document

Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd vs Innova Cap Tab And Another Ig on 24 December, 2013

(i) Kamat Hotels37 : The facts and circumstances in the said case and the business of the rival parties in the said case and present case are different. In that case the Defendant had filed proceedings for rectification of the mark of the Plaintiff which were pending. It was also found that the annual turnover of the Defendant in that case was Rs. 140 crores and that the Defendant had built up substantial reputation and therefore the Court protected the Defendant against the damage which may result to its existing enterprise which had a substantial turnover and reputation.
Bombay High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 4 - S J Kathawalla - Full Document

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited vs Meghmani Lifesciences Limited on 8 April, 2026

28 The decision in case of Wyeth Holdings Corporation (supra) is also placed before us where the Plaintiff's Motion for interlocutory relief in an action of passing off or infringement was revolved around registration of trade mark 'FOLVITE' in 32/42 ::: Uploaded on - 10/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2026 22:14:56 ::: J-ComsApeal-44382-2025.odt Class V in respect of a nutritional factor of Vitamin B complex in treatment and prevention of Vitamin deficiency and anemia and while the registration mark subsisted, the Defendant adopted mark 'FOLCACID' for its product which was then changed to 'FOL- V'. The Plaintiff filed an Application opposing the registration and the registration was refused for trademark 'FOL-V' on the basis that it bear similarity to the earlier trade mark 'FOLVITE' of the Plaintiff and having regard to the similarity of the goods involved, there is a likelihood of confusion on part of the public and there was an apparent danger of public being confused and the use of mark 'FOL-V' would be detrimental to the distinctive character and reputation of the marks of the Plaintiff.
Bombay High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - B Dangre - Full Document

Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited vs Wockhardt Limited And Anr on 15 March, 2017

42. I am unable to follow Mr Tulzapurkar's reliance on the decision in Wyeth Holdings Corporation & Anr v Burnet Pharmaceuticals (Pvt) Ltd.36 The submission there was that the Cadila observations only applied to cases where competing marks were used in drugs with different compositions, and therefore Cadila should be 'read down' and a lower scrutiny bar adopted. The Court rejected this, saying that where the drugs were prescribed for the same ailment but had different compositions, mistaking one for the other could be dangerous. No one has even suggested that here between the Torrent and Wockhardt offerings, and I am not prepared to merely assume it on some generalized or impermissible extrapolation. Much closer home is the issue as it was addressed in Schering, and that was a decision of a Division Bench rendered in 2010 as opposed to the Wyeth decision of a learned single Judge in 36 AIR 2008 Bom 100.
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 7 - G S Patel - Full Document
1   2 Next