Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.24 seconds)Cadila Healthcare Limited vs Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited on 26 March, 2001
28. It is further contended that the Defendants ought to be injuncted even
in public interest. Plaintiff has no control, access or supervision over the
mode of manufacture, hygiene conditions etc. maintained by the Defendants
for manufacture, packaging and sale of the medicinal preparation under the
impugned mark. Any deficiency in the efficacy of the product could be a
serious health hazard to the consumers. The Supreme Court in Cadila
Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73, has
clearly held that in respect of pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations the
threshold of the test of confusion is much lower compared to other products
and stricter approach should be adopted while applying the test to judge the
possibility of confusion of one medicinal product for another by the
consumer.
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 2013
Section 135 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
1