Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Jyoti Singh, J. granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction and remarked that stricter approach is required in cases of medicinal preparations and products since any confusion between the respective medicinal products is likely to have a disastrous effect on public health.

The facts of the case are such that the plaintiff Company is a world renowned pharmaceuticals and consumer healthcare company having Indian Subsidiary, Glaxo Laboratories (India) being one of the market leaders in many therapeutic areas and in preventive healthcare in India. Since the early 1960s, Plaintiff is selling medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations, including tablets and injections, bearing one or more of Plaintiff’s BETNESOL Marks in India treating a wide variety of diseases, including, but not limited to, allergies and inflammatory disorders. Plaintiff is the proprietor of a valid and subsisting registration for the marks BETNESOL and BETNOVATE respectively in Class 5. The defendant is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the manufacturing, marketing and sale of pharmaceutical and medicinal products, including, tablets and oral drops, bearing the marks BETNEZEN and BETNEZEN FORTE and injections bearing the marks BETNECOL and BETNEVIN. As per Plaintiff’s information, Defendant’s tablets, oral drops and injections bearing Defendant’s Mark contain the active ingredient, Betamethasone and are used for the treatment of allergies and inflammatory disorders.

The plaintiff sent a legal notice to the Defendant demanding that Defendant should cease any and all use of Defendant’s Marks as it solely belong to the plaintiff’s. No response was received but on the contrary, Defendant continues to use Defendant’s Marks openly and blatantly. Thus, the instant application was preferred by the Plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 i.e. CPC for grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction.

Counsel for petitioner submitted that owing to long and continuous use of Plaintiff’s BETNESOL Marks, consumers in India associate the marks solely and exclusively with the Plaintiff and no one else.

It was averred that Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s Marks starts with the letter combination “BETNE”. Defendant has merely replaced the letter “S” with the letter “C” in Plaintiff’s BETNESOL Marks to form Defendant’s BETNECOL mark. Defendant has merely replaced the letter combinations “SOL” and “OVATE” in Plaintiff’s BETNESOL Marks and Plaintiff’s BETNOVATE Marks with the letter combination “VIN” and “ZEN” to form the Defendant’s BETNEVIN and BETNEZEN marks. Thus, the rival marks, when looked at in their entirety, are similar in appearance, sound, and structure creating chances of consumer confusion.

The Court relied on Cadila Health Care v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals, (2001) 5 SCC 73 and observed that a stricter approach is required in cases of medicinal preparations and products since any confusion between the respective medicinal products is likely to have a disastrous effect on public health. Therefore, there is no doubt that Defendant’s Marks are nearly identical/similar to Plaintiff’s Marks and are likely to cause confusion amongst the consuming public as to the source of the goods under the Defendant’s Marks.

The Court held “Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of an ex parte ad-interim injunction. Balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiff and it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the injunction, as prayed for, is not granted.” [Glaxo Group Ltd. v. Zenlabs Ethica Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1772, decided on 03-06-2022]


Appearances

For petitioner- Mr. Urfee Roomi, Mr. Parth and Mr. Vishesh Kumar


*Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Legal RoundUpSupreme Court Roundups

 

“Women are subject to a patriarchal mindset that regards them as primary caregivers and homemakers and thus, they are burdened with an unequal share of family responsibilities. Measures to ensure substantive equality for women factor in not only those disadvantages which operate to restrict access to the workplace but equally those which continue to operate once a woman has gained access to the workplace.”

Justice Dr. DY Chandrachud

SK Nausad Rahaman v. Union of India

2022 SCC OnLine SC 297


TOP STORIES


All India Bar Exams| From 1/4th negative marking to limiting the validity of Bar exam for three years; SC issues notice to BCI to respond to suggestions

“The right to practice a profession, also being a fundamental right, a balance has to be maintained between the same and the requirement to monitor the legal profession for its better ethics.”

Read more…

________________________________________________________________________________________________

POCSO| Is investigation of disclosure of victim’s identity permissible without Magistrate’s permission? SC gives split verdict

The bench of Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari, JJ has given split verdict on the issue as to whether the Special Court is debarred from taking cognizance of an offence under Section 23 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and obliged to discharge the accused under Section 227 CrPC, only because of want of permission of the jurisdictional Magistrate to the police, to investigate into the offence.

Read more…

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Supreme Court fixes outer limit for claiming COVID-19 death compensation; Claims to be filed within 90 days from now on

The Court agreed with the submission that by now all genuine claimants must have approached the authorities by establishing their claims and that if there is no outer time limit fixed, then the process of receiving the claims would go endless and, in that case, there is all possibility of submitting false claims.

Read more…


Women burdened with an unequal share of family responsibilities yet discriminated at workplace; State must consider family life while framing any policy

Speaking about the systemic discrimination on account of gender at the workplace which encapsulates the patriarchal construction that permeates all aspects of a woman’s being from the outset, including reproduction, sexuality and private choices, within an unjust structure, the bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud* and Vikram Nath, JJ has observed that it becomes necessary for the Government to adopt policies through which it produces substantive equality of opportunity as distinct from a formal equality for women in the workplace.

Read more…

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Issue of accommodation in a Domestic Violence dispute between husband and wife shall not affect landlord’s right to get possession of his property

The Court was hearing an appeal against the Delhi High Court verdict [2021 SCC OnLine Del 2109] wherein the Trial Court’s order granting the possession of the suit property on favour of the landlord was upheld. The appellant wife, in the present case, had challenged the Trail Court’s order on the ground that her husband should provide her accommodation as per the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Read more…

________________________________________________________________________________________________

‘IBC’s object is not to kill the company’; Builder’s Insolvency Proceedings closed as 82 out of 128 home buyers choose possession over refund/compensation

“If the original applicants and the majority of the home buyers are not permitted to close the CIRP proceedings, it would have a drastic consequence on the home buyers of real estate project.”

Read more…

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Permanent Injunction can’t be granted against true owner once the title dispute is settled

Supreme Court reverses three concurrent findings.

Read more…


EXPLAINED


Which law to prevail if provisions of Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008 are in conflict with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?

Can step-children claim property right in mother’s mehar after her death? Does a registered mehar deed become unenforceable for being nominal?

Can employees appointed for fixed period in temporary unit be absorbed/regularised by creating supernumerary posts?

Compensation under Section 4 of Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 to be awarded from the date of accident or the date of Commissioner’s order? 

Can voluntary retiree seek retrospective promotion as a matter of right? 

Can State discriminate between persons having experience in home State from those having experience in other States? Is there any intelligible differentia?


More Stories


7-year-old’s “brutal” rape and murder: SC commutes Death sentence; No premature release/remission during 30 years’ LI as “conscience of the society cannot be ignored”

“The heinous nature of crime like that of present one, in brutal rape and murder of a seven-year-old girl child, definitely discloses aggravating circumstances, particularly when the manner of its commission shows depravity and shocks the conscience. But,…”

Read more…

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Refusal to continue to execute a contract unless reciprocal promises are performed by the other party is not abandonment of contract

“A party to a contract may abandon his rights under the contract leading to a plea of waiver by the other party, but there is no question of abandoning an obligation.”

Read more…

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Where post import, factum of sale isn’t disputed, no exemption from market fee can be claimed under Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing Act of 1966

“It is the sale within the market area that attracts levy of market fee, and not the first purchase that was outside the market area.”

Read more…

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Confiscation of Truck loaded with cow progeny despite acquittal in criminal proceedings amounts to arbitrary deprivation of property

“…to deprive any person of their property, it is necessary for the State, inter-alia, to establish that the property was illegally obtained or is part of the proceeds of crime or the deprivation is warranted for public purpose or public interest.”

Read more…

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Promotion cannot be granted retrospectively to give benefit and seniority from the date of notional vacancy

The bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh*, JJ has observed that a right to promotion and subsequent benefits and seniority would arise only with respect to the rules governing the said promotion, and not a different set of rules which might apply to a promoted post facilitating further promotion which is governed by a different set of rules.

Read more…

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Supreme Court lays down detailed guidelines for leave to defend in summary suits

Grant of leave to defend is the ordinary rule and denial is an exception.

Read more…

________________________________________________________________________________________________

APMCs liable to pay service tax under the category of ‘renting of immovable property service’

“In a taxing statute, it is the plain language of the provision that has to be preferred”.

Read more…

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Consent award cannot be the basis to determine compensation in other acquisition, especially, when there are other evidences on record

In case of a consent award, one is required to consider the circumstances under which the consent award was passed and the parties agreed to accept the compensation at a particular rate.

Read more…

________________________________________________________________________________________________

“A bus by bus, a mini-bus by mini-bus and not bus by a mini-bus” isn’t a correct way to interpret the expression “same nature”

The Division Bench comprising of K.M. Joseph and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha*, JJ., held that Rule 174(2)(c) of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules,1989 is valid and salutary and does not go beyond the scope of Section 83 of the MV Act, 1988. While interpreting the expression “same nature” the Bench observed that such expressions are better kept open ended to enable courts to subserve the needs of changing circumstances.

Read more…

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Clarification vis-à-vis substantial alteration of commercial agreement; SC considers legality of retrospective application of modifications in agreement

The Division Bench comprising of Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ., held that a modification changing tariff for inadvertent drawal from temporary supply rate to the regular supply rate cannot be considered to be a mere clarification and is rather a substantial alteration which cannot be made applicable retrospectively.

Read more…

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Withdrawal of  Inter-Commissionerate Transfers not invalid but Recruitment Rules 2016 may be revisited to accommodate posting of spouses, disabled persons and compassionate grounds

The bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud* and Vikram Nath, JJ has upheld the Kerala High Court verdict that had held that the Central Excise and Customs Commissionerates Inspector (Central Excise, Preventive Officer and Examiner) Group ‘B’ Posts Recruitment Rules 2016 (RR 2016) withdrawing the Inter-Commissionerate Transfers (ICTs) is not invalid as ICTs would violate the unique identity of each cadre envisaged under Rule 5 of RR 2016.

Read more…

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Is Railway’s decision to disqualify persons with history of lasik surgery for the post of constables (RPF) just and reasonable?

Supreme Court directs constitution of experts committee to answer.

Read more…

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Eligibility Criteria fixed by UGC must be followed by all Universities

“… prescribing the eligibility criteria shall not be left to the sweet will of the search committee. It may lead to arbitrariness and different search committees in absence of any statutory guidelines and/or   prescription, may prescribe different eligibility criteria.”

Read more…

________________________________________________________________________________________________

HC spends 9 months on deciding appeal from an ‘unappealable’ adjournment order. SC imposes Rs. 5 Lakhs exemplary cost on litigant for wasting ‘precious judicial time’

“Such unwarranted proceedings at the behest of the parties who can afford to bear the expenses of such litigations, must be discouraged.”

Read more…

________________________________________________________________________________________________

SC reiterates the duties of Competent Authority and Court while issuing and testing externment orders

“An Order of Externment is an extraordinary measure which should be used sparingly”.

Read more…

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Declaration under the Income Declaration Scheme cannot lead to non-declarant’s immunity from taxation

The protection given, is to the declarant, and for a limited purpose.

Read more…

________________________________________________________________________________________________

OLX Frauds| SC sets aside P&H HC order directing deletion and re-listing of OLX advertisements with proofs

In recent years, in Districts of Gurugram, Faridabad, Rewari, Palwal and Mewat, hundreds of FIRs have been registered, in which accused persons, by using OLX platform, have given various advertisements regarding sale of gold (in different form) or sale of vehicles like motorcycle or car at cheaper price or asking for professional service like architect or accountants have allured many innocent persons and thus, have committed the offence of cheating and forgery.

Read more…

________________________________________________________________________________________________

[Bomikhal Flyover Collapse] Is permanent debarment of guilty contractor too harsh? What makes an order a pre-determined one? Supreme Court answers

“Merely because the show cause notice was issued after the inquiry committee report was considered and thereafter the State Government took the decision to initiate proceedings for blacklisting, that by itself it cannot be said that the order of blacklisting was predetermined as observed by the High Court.”

Read more…

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Murder convict seeks remission of sentence on the ground of being 100% visually impaired. Can disability be a ground for remission? SC answers

The appellant had contended that since he is visually impaired to the extent of suffering permanently from 100% blindness and that was not a result of any voluntary act of the prisoner, the aforementioned provision would come to his aid for consideration of his case for release from serving out the remaining sentence.

Read more…

________________________________________________________________________________________________

SC allows RPSC to go ahead with RAS Mains Exam; Candidates challenging Pre exam result allowed to sit in Mains

In a breather to the candidates challenging the RAS Pre-examination result, the bench of KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ has confirmed the Rajasthan High Court’s division bench directing Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) to go ahead with the RAS/RTS Combined Competitive Examination-2021 mains examination. It has, however, allowed the 243 candidates, who had approached the Courts, to sit in the Mains Examination to be conducted on March 20-21, 2022.

Read more…

________________________________________________________________________________________________

‘Business to business’ dispute not a consumer dispute

The bench of L. Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai*, JJ interpreted the true scope of a “consumer” in terms of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and has held that the ‘business to business’ disputes cannot be construed as consumer disputes.

Read more…

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Frivolous petitions defeating the noble object behind PILs and burdening SC and HCs; Bonafides of Litigants must be examined carefully

“Although the jurisprudence of Public Interest Litigation has matured, many claims filed in the Courts are sometimes immature.”

Read more…

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mere allegation of bias is not fatal to disciplinary inquiry unless supported by materials

Non-supply of demanded documents is not sufficient to challenge a disciplinary inquiry unless it is showed what prejudice has been caused due to non-supply.

Read more…

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Law on filing false affidavit: Can defaulter get benefit of equity? Read what made the Supreme Court reverse concurrent findings of Courts

“Once an affidavit has been filed which is on the face of it false to the knowledge of the executants, no benefit can be claimed on the ground that delivery of possession was given.”

Read more…

________________________________________________________________________________________________

‘Lotteries’ a species of ‘betting and gambling’; States Legislatures competent to levy tax

High Courts of Kerala and Karnataka were wrong in holding so as the Legislatures of the State of Karnataka and Kerala were fully competent to enact the impugned Acts and levy taxes on the activity of ‘betting and gambling’ being organised and conducted in the said respective States, including lotteries conducted by the Government of India or the Government of any State.

Read more…

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Interchangeability of unfilled posts of SC/ST category can be done only by the department concerned, not by appointing authority

Also, rejection of claims of appellants by the departmental authorities relying upon wrong instructions or mentioning incorrect fact of withdrawal of Policy letter would not confer any right to appellants to claim the reliefs.

Read more…

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Trap party recovers tainted currency notes from Tax Officer accused of demanding bribe. Supreme Court acquitted the officer in spite of proved recovery

In an interesting case relating to corruption, the Division Bench of Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka*, JJ., acquitted a Commercial Tax Officer in spite of proved recovery of tainted currency notes from her. The Bench observed that though the recovery was proved in the absence of demand being conclusively proved conviction cannot be made under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act.

Read more…

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Borrower’s offer to pay Rs.71 lakhs as a purchaser of mortgaged property will not discharge him from entire outstanding liability of approx 1.8 crores

The Division Bench of M. R. Shah* and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ., held that  the entire liability outstanding against the borrower could not be discharged on making the payment i.e. Rs.65.65 lakhs against the total dues Rs.1,85,37,218.80 and that the Division Bench of the High Court had erred in directing to release the mortgaged property/secured property and to handover the possession along with the original title deeds to the borrower on payment of a total sum of Rs.65.65 lakhs only.

Read more…

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Irregular Disciplinary Enquiry: Court cannot reinstate employee as such; Matter must be remanded to Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority

In a case where it is found that the enquiry is not conducted properly and/or the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice, the Court cannot reinstate the employee as such and the matter is to be remanded to the Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority to proceed further with the enquiry from the stage of violation of principles of natural justice is noticed.

Read more…

________________________________________________________________________________________________

How will the higher Court know why review jurisdiction was exercised? Courts must mention what was that error apparent on the face of the record

“Unless such reasons are given and unless what was that error apparent on the face of the record is stated and mentioned in the order, the higher forum would not be in a position to know what has weighed with the Court while exercising the review jurisdiction and what was that error apparent on the face of the record.”

Read more…

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Arakonam Naval Station dispute: Supreme Court puts a stop to over 3 decades long commercial dispute

“By going into the minute details of the evidence led before the learned Sole Arbitrator with a magnifying glass and the findings returned thereon, the Appellate Court has clearly transgressed the limitations placed on it.”

Read more…

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Is amount spent by pharmaceutical companies in gifting freebies to the doctors “business expenditure” under IT Act when act of accepting freebies by doctors is an offence? SC answers

“…the statutory regime requiring that a thing be done in a certain manner, also implies (even in the absence of any express terms), that the other forms of doing it are impermissible.”

Read more…


Supreme Court Cases


2022 SCC Vol. 1 Part 2

In this part, read a very pertinent decision of the Supreme Court, Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Ltd.2021 SCC OnLine SC 557 wherein while holding that an award passed by Emergency Arbitrator is enforceable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a Division Bench of R.F. Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ. has ruled in favour of Amazon in the infamous Future-Amazon dispute. It has been held that the interim award in favour of Amazon, passed by the Emergency Arbitrator appointed under the Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre is enforceable under the Indian Arbitration Act.

2022 SCC Vol. 1 Part 3

In this part read the Supreme Court decision in Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association v. NBCC (India) Ltd.,(2022) 1 SCC 401, wherein the Court while the Adjudicating authority has the authority to disapprove the resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC), it cannot modify the same.

2022 SCC Vol. 2 Part 1

In this part read a very important matter, wherein a relative committed rape on the prosecutrix and none of the family members believed her and in fact beat her up when she narrated the incident, Supreme Court found it unfortunate that even the sister-in-law (Jethani) and mother-in-law though being women did not support the prosecutrix. [Phool Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1153]

2022 SCC Vol. 2 Part 2


Experts CornerMurali Neelakantan

There has been little research on why convictions for trade mark infringement are not common when there are a large number of civil infringement cases. Our particular interest is in cases of drugs and medicines, which is the class where it seems the most number of trade marks are registered every year[1].

 

Is it because the process of FIR, investigation and prosecution is cumbersome, or because the justice ecosystem does not consider this as a priority and trade mark owners do not feel that the time, effort and money invested in seeking conviction is worth it? Is there an alternative and more effective system for preventing trade mark infringement and enforcement against truant entities which misbrand drugs to unfairly benefit from well-known and market leading brands?

 

The process of prosecution for criminal infringement of trade marks begins with the complaint to the police who will register an FIR citing various provisions of the Penal Code, 1860, Copyright Act, 1957 and the Trade Marks Act, 1999, if the complaint has the facts making out the offence[2]. If the complainant has done enough investigation and has invoices for the infringing products, the police may decide to arrest the accused persons since the offence is cognizable and non-bailable. The arrest may happen during or after a “raid” to seize the goods that are allegedly infringing the complainant’s trade mark[3]. However, before the police can do this, a report from the Registrar of Trade Marks opining that the alleged infringement has occurred is necessary[4]. This could take weeks to obtain during which time, the infringing goods may no longer be in the place where the complainant claims. It will require enormous resources to be able to maintain surveillance of the facilities, products and people involved in the illegal operation. Does the police force have such resources to devote to this? Does the police force have the expertise to deal with this crime? Even once the report of the Registrar is obtained and the opinion there is that the goods are infringing, that opinion itself is open to challenge. Given the lack of clarity from the courts on what the test for infringement is and the decisions in various cases, it is almost impossible to be sure if the opinion of the Registrar is correct.

 

In a recent poll of senior police officers who were asked to opine if the following trade marks were infringing and caused confusion, the majority got it “wrong” i.e. their decision was the opposite of what the High Courts or Supreme Court held in that case.

 

The brand names, Vihagra[5], V-GRA[6], Filagra and Vilagra[7] are confusingly similar to Viagra but Penegra[8] is not and Kavagra is easily confused with Kamagra even though all these brands are for a Schedule H drug which can only be purchased with a doctor’s prescription[9].

 

Despite Section 13 of the Trade Marks Act which prohibits the appropriation of chemical names as trade marks, it is common practice to name a drug by the name of the organ (“Liv” for the liver, for example) or the ailment which it treats or the main ingredient of the drug. Such an organ, ailment or ingredient being publici juris or generic cannot be owned by anyone for use as trade mark.[10]

 

As a result of the Trade Marks Registry allowing brand names using the primary chemical compound, organ or ailment to be registered there is a proliferation of similar and often confusing trade marks for a drug. A recent example is of the drug, Molnupiravir, a pill to treat COVID. Applying the test of a common man, would not these marks be confusing even for doctors who shorten the medicine to “molnu”?

 

 

Brand Name 

Pharma Company
Cipmolnu Cipla Ltd.
Molnunat Natco Pharma Ltd.
Molflu Dr Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd.
Molxvir Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.
Molnumize & Molnutor Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Molulife Mankind Pharma
Lizuvira Zuventus Healthcare Ltd.

This is not a new or “one-off” incident. The brands, “Trivedon” and “Flavedon” were said to be dissimilar[11]. This followed a case where “Mexate” and “Zexate” were also found to be dissimilar[12] even though the brand names were rhyming words. The Delhi High Court[13] held that the two marks  derived prefix “Mero” from the drug “Meropenem” and there was no similarity between “Meromer” and “Meronem”. This principle was consistently followed in Schering Corpn. v.  Alkem Laboratories Ltd.[14], where it was held that there was no similarity between “Temodal” and “Temodar” since the prefix derived from the name of the chemical compound Temozolomide to arrive at “Temodal” and “Temodar” on the one hand and “Temoget” and “Temokem” on the other. The leading case on this subject is Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.[15] which is routinely cited by subsequent decisions. In that case, the petitioner manufactured the drug branded as “Falcigo” for the treatment of cerebral malaria, commonly referred to as “Falciparum” and registered the name “Falcigo” in 1996. The respondent also was engaged in manufacturing a drug named “Falcitab”, and got it registered in 1997, also for the treatment of “Falciparum” malaria. This is an interesting case of registered trade marks for the same drug causing infringement, a sharp comment on India’s Trade Marks Registry and the drug regulator.

 

However, in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. V. Anand Prasad[16] the appellant was the registered proprietor of the mark “Fortwin” (Pentazocine injection) and had been using the mark since 1975, relating to pharmaceutical preparation for treatment of some bone-related disorder. The respondent applied for the registration of mark “Ostwin” (Diacerein tablet), again for the same treatment of bones, which was opposed to by the appellants as being deceptively similar to their mark. IPAB held that, “though prefix of both the marks are different i.e. ‘Fort’ (appellant) and ‘Ost’ (respondent), they do have a common suffix i.e. ‘Win’ and since the rival goods are also pharmaceutical goods, serious consequences might follow due to deception and confusion in the minds of the general public”.

 

From these examples, it seems that the test that the courts have laid down does not seem to work for medicines:

“The question of infringement must be approached from the viewpoint of a common man with average intelligence, and imperfect memory, for whom the overall structure and phonetic similarity in the names is likely to deceive and cause confusion. The common man will not go for splitting the names and analyse their individual meaning before purchasing, but would rather depend upon his memory, or what he has learnt from someone about the product.”[17]

In the Indian context, is it sufficient to now use this simplistic test which perhaps works well for soap, toothpaste and perhaps even “over-the-counter” drugs for prescription drugs?

 

Since the origin of purchasing a medicine is often a doctor’s prescription, should not the test be whether a doctor will confuse the names of the brands and whether that confusion will hurt the patient? From the polls and cases it is clear that there is no risk to the patient if there is “confusion” so long as both brands are for the same drug[18]. It is to mitigate against the risk of patient harm that it is a mandatory requirement that doctors write the chemical name of the drug in the prescriptions. This will also ensure that there is very little chance of a mistake by the pharmacist dispensing the wrong drug or being confused by similar brand names.

 

Should the test for infringement be whether the brand names confuse both the pharmacist and the doctor resulting in the patient taking the wrong drug? That is only likely to happen if there are confusingly similar brand names for different drugs as was the case in Fortwin and Ostawin[19] or Terbinafine which is an antifungal compound and Terfenadine, an antihistamine drug. Another set of drugs which could lead to confusion is the brand, Olvance for the antihypertensive  drug, Olmesartan and Oleanz, a brand of the antipsychotic drug, Olanzapine. This is a dangerous situation that has existed in India for some time and needs to be addressed immediately.

 

One should ask if the issues set out above are unique to India. In the developed world, brand names are entirely disconnected with the chemical name. For example, the brand name for Molnupiravir is Lagevrio. Similarly for sildenafil citrate it is Viagra. That is the global standard recommended by the WHO and although India attempts to implement it in Section 13 of the Trade Marks Act, we have seen that in actual practice, thanks to the connivance of the Trade Marks Registry, the drug regulator and the courts, the confusion seems intentional, at the cost of patients.

 

Given that there is so much uncertainty in the law, it will be a challenge for the prosecution to be able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to infringe a registered trade mark of the complainant. Would not it be a defence for the accused that the drug regulator approved the label containing the brand name thereby confirming that it was not causing confusion for patients and the medical community[20]? Seizing the “infringing” drugs and all the equipment used to produce it may indeed cause a greater harm of denying patients access to the medicines they need. Finally, even if convicted, it is unlikely that the accused person will undergo any serious punishment – a small fine or a few months of imprisonment at worst. Perhaps all the stakeholders in the justice system have come to the conclusion that this is not just worth it. Is that the reason for the number of cases where imprisonment results for trade mark infringements in India?

 

How do we fix this problem that is entirely of our own making?

  1. Enforce the mandatory requirement for doctors to clearly write the name of the drug in the prescriptions. This should eliminate the risk of the wrong drug being administered.
  2. When the drug regulator approves the labels under Rule 96 of the Drugs Rules, 1945 it should check its own database for similar brand names and ensure that it does not approve any confusingly similar names.
  3. Enforce Section 13 of the Trade Marks Act so that no trade marks containing chemical names are registered.
  4. Use Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, rather than the Trade Marks Act to prosecute for misbranding drugs.

 


† Murali Neelakantan is currently Principal lawyer at Amicus. He is a dual qualified lawyer (India and UK) and among other positions, he was formerly a partner at an international law firm in London, Cipla’s first global general counsel, and Executive Director and Global General Counsel of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals.

[1] “Filing for marks relating to the health sector attracted the largest proportion of applications filed in India (23.7%)” WIPO, World IP Indicators, 2021. P83- HERE .

[2] For a recent case, see <HERE >.

[3] Trade Marks Act, 1999, S. 115.

[4] See Trade Marks Act, proviso to S. 115: Provided that the police officer, before making any search and seizure, shall obtain the opinion of the Registrar on facts involved in the offence relating to trade mark and shall abide by the opinion so obtained.

[5] Pfizer Products Inc. v. R.K. Singh, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2623.

[6] Pfizer Products Inc. v. G.S. Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd., 2013 SCC OnLine Del 6430.

[7] Pfizer Products Inc. v. Mittal Nathalal Patel, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1584.

[8] Pfizer Products Inc. v. B.L. & Co., 2002 SCC OnLine Del 396.

[9] Pfizer Products Inc. v. Mittal Nathalal Patel, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1584.

[10] Astrazeneca UK  Ltd. v. Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2006 SCC OnLine Del 1668 which was later affirmed by the Division Bench in Astrazeneca UK  Ltd. v. Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2007 SCC OnLine Del 237.

[11] Biofarma v. Sanjay Medical Store, 1997 SCC OnLine Del 359.

[12] Cadila Laboratories Ltd. v. Dabur India Ltd., 1997 SCC OnLine Del 360.

[13] Astrazeneca UK  Ltd. v. Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2006 SCC OnLine Del 1668 which was later affirmed by the Division Bench in Astrazeneca UK  Ltd. v. Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2007 SCC OnLine Del 237.

[14] 2008 SCC OnLine Del 760 which was affirmed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Schering Corpn. v. Alkem Laboratories Ltd., 2009 SCC OnLine Del 3886.

[15] (2001) 5 SCC 73.

[16] 2004 SCC OnLine IPAB 65.

[17] Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta, AIR 1963 SC 449.

[18] See, Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Swisskem Healthcare, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1186.

[19] Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. V. Anand Prasad, 2004 SCC OnLine IPAB 65.

[20] See, M.L. Khanna v. State of Uttarakhand, 2012 SCC OnLine Utt 2489 where the court missed an opportunity to answer this question.