Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.22 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Cadila Healthcare Limited vs Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited on 26 March, 2001
20. Though the Defendant has a registration for the mark 'RIKONISE',
however, the usage by the Defendant is Riko in a miniscule font and NISE-P
in a manner which is almost identical to the manner in which the
Pcompletely in a manner that can cause confusion. Moreover, these being
pharmaceutical preparations, the Plaintiff is selling nimesulide based
preparations under the mark 'NISE' whereas the Defendant is selling
Aceclofenac & Paracetamol Suspension. An identical mark is being used for
different combinations and different content though directed towards the
same ailment as the Plaintiff's product. However, going by the test laid
down in Cadila Healthcare Limited vs Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited in
CA 2372/2001 by the Supreme Court, in pharmaceutical preparations, any
form of confusion is to be avoided. Further, this Court is convinced that the
adoption and use of the mark 'NISE-P' is not bonafide inasmuch as the
Defendant's mark is registered as 'RIKONISE'.
The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division And Commercial Appellate Division Of High Courts Act, 2015
1