Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.31 seconds)Corn Products Refining Co. vs Shangrila Food Products Ltd. on 8 October, 1959
In Com Products Refining v. Shangrila Food Products, 'Glucovita' held similar to 'Gluvita'.
Cadila Healthcare Limited vs Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited on 26 March, 2001
In its recent Judgment in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., though the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not interfere with the order appealed against for the reason that there might be possibility of evidence being requested on merit of the case, yet it gave direction to the lower Court Vadodara regarding expeditious disposal of the suit on the principles which were to be kept in mind while dealing with an action for infringement or passing off specially in the cases relating to the medical products. The appellant in this case filed a suit in the District Court at Vadodara seeking injunction against the respondent from using the trade mark 'FALCITAB' as it was claimed that the same would be passed off as appellant's drugs 'FALCIGO' for treatment of the same disease in view of confusing similarity and deception in the
brands. It was the case of the respondents that admittedly the two products in question were schedule 'L' drugs which can be sold only to the Hospitals & Clinics with the result that there could not be even a remote chance of confusion and deception. It may be here noticed that schedule 'H' drugs and those, which can be sold by the chemist only on the prescription of the doctor, but schedule 'L' drugs are not sold across the country but are sold only to the hospitals and clinics. While directing the lower Court for expeditious disposal of the suit, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred the English cases as guidelines specially in the matter pertaining to the medicinal products. A few of those are as follows :-
Mac. Laboratories Private Ltd. vs American Home Products Corporation And ... on 14 May, 1968
In Glenwood Laboratories Inc. v. American Home Products Corporation, 173 USPQ 19 (1972) 455 F. Reports 2d, 1364 (1972). It was held "the products of parties are medicinal and applicants product is contraindicated for the disease for which the opposer's product is indicated. It is apparent that confusion or mistake in tilling a prescription for either product could produce harmful effect. Under such circumstances, it is necessary for obvious reason to avoid confusion or mistake in the dispensing of the pharmaceuticals".
Win-Medicare Limited vs Somacare Laboratories on 4 December, 1996
In Win Medicare Ltd. v. Somacare Laboratories, 'DICLOMOL' held similar to 'DICMOL'.
Section 18 in The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958
Section 12 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Coca Cola Export Corpn. vs Income Tax Officer Coca Cola Export ... on 20 November, 1998
10. Amrithdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo, AIR 1963 SC 449 at 452 : PTC (Suppl)(2) 1(SC); Coca-Cola Co. v. Pepsi-Cola, (1942) 59 RPC 127 at 133. It is well settled that in deciding the question of similarity between two marks, the marks have to be considered as wholes when comparing two words, it is not right to take a part of the word and compare it with a part of the other word ; one word must be considered as a whole and compared with the other word as a whole. In William bailey (Birmigham) Ltd. 's Appln., (1935) RPC 136. Farwill Justice said "I do not think it is a right to take part of the word and compare it with a part of the other word, one word must be considered as a whole and compared with the other word as a whole. I think it is dangerous method to adopt to dilute the word up and seek to distinguish a portion of it from a portion of the other word." "The true test", as observed by Sargant, J. "is whether the totality of the proposed trade mark is such that it is likely to cause mis-lake or deception, or confusion, in the minds of persons accustomed to the existing trade mark."
1