Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (0.81 seconds)
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd on 16 April, 2024 cites

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

In our opinion, the judgment and the ratio laid down in Schering Corporation v. Alkem Laboratories Ltd. (supra), squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The appellant, in the present case, cannot be allowed to monopolize the INN ‗LETROZOLE'. The mark, ‗LETROZ', is not similar to the trademark ‗LETERO' merely because both the parties have adopted the initial letters (SUN adopted the first six and HETERO adopted the first three) of the INN ‗LETROZOLE'. It is apparent that both SUN and HETERO are using their marks, which are derived from the INN ‗LETROZOLE', which is descriptive of the active ingredient of the drug, that is, ‗LETROZOLE'.
Delhi High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 34 - V Sanghi - Full Document

Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd vs Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd on 9 January, 2020

24. Apart from the decisions noticed above, the appellants also relied upon various other judgments which had held that words which are publici juris cannot form the basis for injunctive relief and of those two having been rendered upon actions instituted by Sun Pharma itself. The two decisions which were cited for our consideration were Sun Pharmaceutical Laboratories Vs. Hetero Healthcare Limited15 and Sun Pharmaceutical Laboratories Vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.16 Dr. Singhvi also sought to draw sustenance from a list of third-party trademarks employing the words ―MET‖ and which were set out in the shape of a table, which is extracted hereinbelow:
Delhi High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 1 - A Malhotra - Full Document

M/S Gufic Ltd. & Another vs Clinique Laboratories, Llc & Anr on 9 July, 2010

26. Insofar as infringement analysis is concerned, it was the submission of Dr. Singhvi that Sun Pharma's mark ―ISTAMET XR CP‖ is registered only with respect to a limited specification of goods being ―Pharmaceutical Preparations for treatment and prevention of Diabetes‖, and is further disclaimed by the following restriction- ―the mark to be read as a whole‖. According to Dr. Singhvi, where marks are not identical, the test of deceptive similarity in case of infringement would be the same as those employed while testing a passing-off action. Reliance in this respect was placed upon the decision in M/s Gufic Ltd. & Anr. vs Clinique Laboratories LLC & Anr.17 and to the following passage as appearing therein:
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 18 - B D Ahmed - Full Document

Panacea Biotec Ltd. vs Recon Ltd. on 24 July, 1996

In the case of Panacea Biotec Ltd. v. Recon Ltd., 1996 SCC OnLine Del 508, the plaintiff was using the trademark ‗NIMULID' and had filed a suit for injunction against the defendant for using the mark ‗REMULIDE' in relation to the same medicine with the API being ‗NIMESULIDE. This Court held that when the name is derived or coined from the name of the FAO(OS) (COMM) 146/2023 Signature Not Verified Page 30 of 83 Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:16.04.2024 17:55:08 principal ingredient being used in the manufacture of the drug, no distinctiveness or exclusiveness can be claimed by the manufacturer. The said decision is applicable to the facts of this case as well; the mark ‗LETROZ' is nothing but a short name of the active ingredient ‗LETROZOLE'.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 15 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next