{"id":286510,"date":"2023-03-07T09:00:36","date_gmt":"2023-03-07T03:30:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=286510"},"modified":"2023-06-12T16:04:11","modified_gmt":"2023-06-12T10:34:11","slug":"bombay-high-court-upholds-intellectual-property-appellate-board-decision-to-delete-oflomac-medicinal-product-as-slightest-confusion-in-pharmaceutical-products-may-cause-disastrous-effect-on-public-leg","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/07\/bombay-high-court-upholds-intellectual-property-appellate-board-decision-to-delete-oflomac-medicinal-product-as-slightest-confusion-in-pharmaceutical-products-may-cause-disastrous-effect-on-public-leg\/","title":{"rendered":"Bombay High Court: Mere existence of the slightest probability of confusion in case of medicinal product marks requires that the use of such mark be restrained"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\tdocument.title = 'Confusion in medicinal product marks may be disastrous: Bombay HC | SCC Blog'\n\tdocument.querySelector('meta[name=\"description\"]').setAttribute(\"content\", \"Bombay High Court held that it is in the public interest to clear any confusion in cases of medicinal\/ pharmaceutical product trademarks.\");\n<\/script><\/p>\n<div style=\"text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;\">\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><b>Bombay High Court:<\/b> In a petition filed by Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited (petitioner) challenging the order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (respondent 2) (\u2018IPAB\u2019) directing deletion of registered trademark \u2018OFLOMAC\u2019 registered by Sun Pharmaceuticals (respondent 4) for medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations falling in class-5 under the provisions of Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001563709\">57<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002776236\">Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/a>, a division bench of SV Gangapurwala, ACJ., and Madhav J Jamdar, J., held that there is no patent error in the impugned decision and is in the interest of the general public as the mark concerns medicinal \/ pharmaceutical product. It is because confusion in the case of a non-medicinal or a non-pharmaceutical product may only cause economic loss to the person, but on the other hand, confusion in terms of medicinal or pharmaceutical products may have a disastrous effect on health.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The petitioner is a pharmaceutical company incorporated under the provisions of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9000055985\">Companies Act, 1956<\/a>. It is the claim of Respondent 4 that it had applied for registration of trademark \u201cOFRAMAX\u201d on 30-08-1989 and registration was granted on 13-05-1994 in Class-5 i.e., \u201c<i>pharmaceutical products for human and veterinary use<\/i>\u201d. However, the petitioner filed the trademark application on 28-01-1999 regarding the mark \u201cOFLOMAC\u201d in said Class-5 and was granted registration for the same. Thereafter, respondent 4 filed a rectification application seeking cancellation\/ removal of the said \u2018OFLOMAC\u2019 trademark registration of the Petitioner, which was thereby allowed and the order has been impugned in the present petition.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The main issue under consideration is whether the impugned trademark of the petitioner is of such a nature as to deceive the public or cause confusion with respect to the trademark of respondent 4 as envisaged under Section 9(2)(a) and Section 11(1)(b) of Trade Mark Act, 1999 Act?<\/p>\n<p>The Court noted that the principles to determine the question of confusing similarity in the case of trademarks used in respect of medicinal products are as follows:<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 36pt; text-indent: -18pt;\">(a) When a particular medicinal or a pharmaceutical product is involved as the impugned trade mark which may deceive the public or cause a confusion with respect to another trademark, it is the Court&#8217;s primary duty to take utmost care to prevent any such possibility of confusion in the use of trademarks.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 36pt; text-indent: -18pt;\">(b) <b>Confusion in the case of a non-medicinal or a non-pharmaceutical product may only cause economic loss to the person, but on the other hand, confusion in terms of medicinal or a pharmaceutical product may have a disastrous effect on health. Hence, it is proper to require a lesser quantum of proof of confusing similarity for such products.<\/b><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 36pt; text-indent: -18pt;\">(c) The Court may not speculate as to whether there is a probability of confusion between the marks. The mere existence of the slightest probability of confusion in the case of medicinal product marks requires that the use of such marks be restrained.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 36pt; text-indent: -18pt;\">(d) While arriving at a conclusion with respect to the similarity and confusion between medicinal products, the same should be examined from the point of view of an ordinary common man of average intelligence instead of that of a specialized medicinal practitioner. Courts must decide the same from the viewpoint of a man with average intelligence considering multiple factors such as the first impression of the mark, salient features of both the products, nature of the commodity, overall similarity, and the possibility of the same creating confusion amongst the public at large.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 36pt; text-indent: -18pt;\">(e) The Court&#8217;s primary duty is towards the public and the register&#8217;s purity towards the public and the register&#8217;s purity. The duty of the Court must always be to protect the public irrespective of what hardship or inconvenience it may cause to a particular party whose trade mark is likely to deceive or cause confusion.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 36pt; text-indent: -18pt;\">(f) The following rules of comparison can be culled out from various pronouncement of Court from time to time. (i) Meticulous comparison is not the correct way. (ii) Mark must be compared as whole. (iii) First impression. (iv) Prima facie view is not conclusive. (v) Structural resemblance. (vi) Similarity in idea to be considered.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 36pt; text-indent: -18pt; margin-bottom: 3%;\">(g) The main object of maintaining trade mark register is that the public should know whose goods they are buying. It is therefore essential that the register should not contain the trade mark which is identical by which purchaser may likely be deceived by thinking that they are buying the goods of a particular company\/industry whereas he is buying the goods of another company\/industry.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Placing reliance on <i>Cadila Healthcare Ltd.<\/i> v. <i>Cadila Pharmaceuticals<\/i>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0000030445\">(2001) 5 SCC 73<\/a>, the Court further noted that the conclusions recorded by the IPAB are proper and legal and recorded by applying the established principles to the same. <i>It is a settled legal position that when a particular medicinal or pharmaceutical product is involved in the impugned trade mark which may deceive the public or cause confusion with respect to another trademark, it is the Court&#8217;s primary duty to take utmost care to prevent any such possibility of confusion in the use of trademarks.<\/i> The Court may not speculate as to whether there is a probability of confusion between the marks.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Thus, the Court held that the impugned trademark of the Petitioner is of such a nature to deceive the public or cause confusion with respect to the trademark of the Respondent 4 as envisaged under Section 9(2)(a) and Section 11(1)(b) of the said 1999 Act.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">[<span style=\"font-weight: bold; color: #632423;\">Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited v Union of India, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/5orXGtBP\">2023 SCC OnLine Bom 408<\/a>, decided on 15-02-2023<\/span>]<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p>Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt;\">Mr. Alankar Kirpekar a\/w Ms. Archana Sahadeva, Mr. Rajas Panandikar, Mr. Shekhar Bhagat i\/by MAG Legal for the Petitioner;<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt;\">Mr. Rajesh G. Singh a\/w Ms. Carina Xavier for Respondent 1 and 3 &#8211; Union of India;<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt;\">Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar, Senior Counsel a\/w Mr. Hiren Kamod, Mr. Anees Patel, Ms. Aishwarya Ambardekar i\/by M\/s Aishwarya Ambardekar Inttle for Respondent 4.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p><i>Bombay High Court observed that confusion in the case a medicinal or pharmaceutical product may have disastrous effect on the health.<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67516,"featured_media":285808,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[2569,26504,27643,39065,55797,55799,55798,45703,29194,3221],"class_list":["post-286510","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-Bombay_High_Court","tag-healthcare","tag-intellectual-property","tag-ipab","tag-medicinal-product","tag-oflomac","tag-oframax","tag-pharmaceutical","tag-right-to-health","tag-Trademark"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Bombay High Court: Mere existence of the slightest probability of confusion in case of medicinal product marks requires that the use of such mark be restrained | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In a petition filed by Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited (petitioner) challenging the order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/07\/bombay-high-court-upholds-intellectual-property-appellate-board-decision-to-delete-oflomac-medicinal-product-as-slightest-confusion-in-pharmaceutical-products-may-cause-disastrous-effect-on-public-leg\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bombay High Court: Mere existence of the slightest probability of confusion in case of medicinal product marks requires that the use of such mark be restrained\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In a petition filed by Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited (petitioner) challenging the order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/07\/bombay-high-court-upholds-intellectual-property-appellate-board-decision-to-delete-oflomac-medicinal-product-as-slightest-confusion-in-pharmaceutical-products-may-cause-disastrous-effect-on-public-leg\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-03-07T03:30:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-06-12T10:34:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-581.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Arunima\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Arunima\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/07\/bombay-high-court-upholds-intellectual-property-appellate-board-decision-to-delete-oflomac-medicinal-product-as-slightest-confusion-in-pharmaceutical-products-may-cause-disastrous-effect-on-public-leg\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/07\/bombay-high-court-upholds-intellectual-property-appellate-board-decision-to-delete-oflomac-medicinal-product-as-slightest-confusion-in-pharmaceutical-products-may-cause-disastrous-effect-on-public-leg\/\",\"name\":\"Bombay High Court: Mere existence of the slightest probability of confusion in case of medicinal product marks requires that the use of such mark be restrained | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/07\/bombay-high-court-upholds-intellectual-property-appellate-board-decision-to-delete-oflomac-medicinal-product-as-slightest-confusion-in-pharmaceutical-products-may-cause-disastrous-effect-on-public-leg\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/07\/bombay-high-court-upholds-intellectual-property-appellate-board-decision-to-delete-oflomac-medicinal-product-as-slightest-confusion-in-pharmaceutical-products-may-cause-disastrous-effect-on-public-leg\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-581.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-03-07T03:30:36+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-06-12T10:34:11+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb\"},\"description\":\"In a petition filed by Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited (petitioner) challenging the order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/07\/bombay-high-court-upholds-intellectual-property-appellate-board-decision-to-delete-oflomac-medicinal-product-as-slightest-confusion-in-pharmaceutical-products-may-cause-disastrous-effect-on-public-leg\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/07\/bombay-high-court-upholds-intellectual-property-appellate-board-decision-to-delete-oflomac-medicinal-product-as-slightest-confusion-in-pharmaceutical-products-may-cause-disastrous-effect-on-public-leg\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/07\/bombay-high-court-upholds-intellectual-property-appellate-board-decision-to-delete-oflomac-medicinal-product-as-slightest-confusion-in-pharmaceutical-products-may-cause-disastrous-effect-on-public-leg\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-581.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-581.jpg\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Bombay High Court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/07\/bombay-high-court-upholds-intellectual-property-appellate-board-decision-to-delete-oflomac-medicinal-product-as-slightest-confusion-in-pharmaceutical-products-may-cause-disastrous-effect-on-public-leg\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bombay High Court: Mere existence of the slightest probability of confusion in case of medicinal product marks requires that the use of such mark be restrained\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb\",\"name\":\"Arunima\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Arunima\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor_9\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bombay High Court: Mere existence of the slightest probability of confusion in case of medicinal product marks requires that the use of such mark be restrained | SCC Times","description":"In a petition filed by Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited (petitioner) challenging the order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/07\/bombay-high-court-upholds-intellectual-property-appellate-board-decision-to-delete-oflomac-medicinal-product-as-slightest-confusion-in-pharmaceutical-products-may-cause-disastrous-effect-on-public-leg\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bombay High Court: Mere existence of the slightest probability of confusion in case of medicinal product marks requires that the use of such mark be restrained","og_description":"In a petition filed by Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited (petitioner) challenging the order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/07\/bombay-high-court-upholds-intellectual-property-appellate-board-decision-to-delete-oflomac-medicinal-product-as-slightest-confusion-in-pharmaceutical-products-may-cause-disastrous-effect-on-public-leg\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-03-07T03:30:36+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-06-12T10:34:11+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-581.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Arunima","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Arunima","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/07\/bombay-high-court-upholds-intellectual-property-appellate-board-decision-to-delete-oflomac-medicinal-product-as-slightest-confusion-in-pharmaceutical-products-may-cause-disastrous-effect-on-public-leg\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/07\/bombay-high-court-upholds-intellectual-property-appellate-board-decision-to-delete-oflomac-medicinal-product-as-slightest-confusion-in-pharmaceutical-products-may-cause-disastrous-effect-on-public-leg\/","name":"Bombay High Court: Mere existence of the slightest probability of confusion in case of medicinal product marks requires that the use of such mark be restrained | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/07\/bombay-high-court-upholds-intellectual-property-appellate-board-decision-to-delete-oflomac-medicinal-product-as-slightest-confusion-in-pharmaceutical-products-may-cause-disastrous-effect-on-public-leg\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/07\/bombay-high-court-upholds-intellectual-property-appellate-board-decision-to-delete-oflomac-medicinal-product-as-slightest-confusion-in-pharmaceutical-products-may-cause-disastrous-effect-on-public-leg\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-581.jpg","datePublished":"2023-03-07T03:30:36+00:00","dateModified":"2023-06-12T10:34:11+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb"},"description":"In a petition filed by Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited (petitioner) challenging the order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/07\/bombay-high-court-upholds-intellectual-property-appellate-board-decision-to-delete-oflomac-medicinal-product-as-slightest-confusion-in-pharmaceutical-products-may-cause-disastrous-effect-on-public-leg\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/07\/bombay-high-court-upholds-intellectual-property-appellate-board-decision-to-delete-oflomac-medicinal-product-as-slightest-confusion-in-pharmaceutical-products-may-cause-disastrous-effect-on-public-leg\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/07\/bombay-high-court-upholds-intellectual-property-appellate-board-decision-to-delete-oflomac-medicinal-product-as-slightest-confusion-in-pharmaceutical-products-may-cause-disastrous-effect-on-public-leg\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-581.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-581.jpg","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Bombay High Court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/07\/bombay-high-court-upholds-intellectual-property-appellate-board-decision-to-delete-oflomac-medicinal-product-as-slightest-confusion-in-pharmaceutical-products-may-cause-disastrous-effect-on-public-leg\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bombay High Court: Mere existence of the slightest probability of confusion in case of medicinal product marks requires that the use of such mark be restrained"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb","name":"Arunima","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Arunima"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor_9\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-581.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":279313,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/08\/bombay-high-court-temporarily-injuncts-griffon-biometrix-pvt-ltd-from-using-the-word-griff-or-griffon-usage-of-the-same-amounts-to-infringement-and-passing-off\/","url_meta":{"origin":286510,"position":0},"title":"Bombay High Court temporarily injuncts Griffon Biometrix Pvt Ltd. from using the word GRIFF or GRIFFON; Usage of the same amounts to infringement and passing off","author":"Editor","date":"December 8, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Prima facie, it appears that the defendant entered the market with the impugned mark in the year 2018, only to ride upon the goodwill earned by the plaintiff over a considerable period.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/Bombay-High-Court-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":268289,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/13\/del-hc-restrains-zenlabs-from-doing-any-act-that-amounts-to-infringement-of-glaxos-registered-marks-betnesol-and-betnovate\/","url_meta":{"origin":286510,"position":1},"title":"Del HC grants ex-parte ad-interim injunction in trademark infringement of Glaxo&#8217;s BETNESOL and BETNOVATE","author":"Editor","date":"June 13, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"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\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/Delhi-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/Delhi-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/Delhi-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/Delhi-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/Delhi-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":324619,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/18\/bhc-grants-ad-interim-injunction-to-glenmark-pharmaceuticals-for-mark-zitamet\/","url_meta":{"origin":286510,"position":2},"title":"\u2018Ordinary common man will be confused\u2019; Bombay HC grants ad-interim injunction to Glenmark Pharmaceuticals for mark \u201cZITA-MET\u201d against Gleck Pharma\u2019s mark \u201cXIGAMET\u201d","author":"Simranjeet","date":"June 18, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court stated that physicians, doctors, and chemists are knowledgeable in their field, however they are not infallible, and in respect of medicinal and pharmaceutical products there cannot be any leeway for mistakes, since even a possibility of a mistake may prove fatal to the consumers.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Bombay High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":370620,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/23\/bom-hc-cedon-cefdon-trademark-infringement-scc-times\/","url_meta":{"origin":286510,"position":3},"title":"&#8220;CEFDON&#8221; is deceptively similar to &#8220;CEDON&#8221;; Bombay High Court issues permanent injunction, imposes \u20b95 Lakh Costs","author":"Ritu","date":"December 23, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe Defendants shall each pay a sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs as costs to the Plaintiff within a period of 8 weeks from today.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"CEDON Trade Mark","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/CEDON-Trade-Mark.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/CEDON-Trade-Mark.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/CEDON-Trade-Mark.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/CEDON-Trade-Mark.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":294963,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/20\/know-thy-judge-madras-hc-chief-justice-sv-gangapurwala-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":286510,"position":4},"title":"Know Thy Judge| Justice Sanjay Vijaykumar Gangapurwala &#8211; 52nd Chief Justice of Madras High Court","author":"Editor","date":"June 20, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Justice S.V. Gangapurwala was sworn in as Chief Justice of Madras High Court on 28-05-2023.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Know thy Judge&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Know thy Judge","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/judges-information\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"s.v. gangapurwala","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/s.v.-gangapurwala.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/s.v.-gangapurwala.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/s.v.-gangapurwala.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/s.v.-gangapurwala.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":371012,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/26\/bom-hc-vacates-injunction-raciraft-esiraft-not-deceptively-similar\/","url_meta":{"origin":286510,"position":5},"title":"Bombay HC finds no deceptive similarity between &#8220;RACIRAFT&#8221; and &#8220;EsiRaft&#8221;; Vacates interim injunction","author":"Soumya Yadav","date":"December 26, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cWell settled principles for assessing the deceptive similarity lays emphasis on visual appearance as well as the phonetic similarity i.e. that the marks have to be judged by the eye as well as the ear.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"not deceptively similar","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/not-deceptively-similar.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/not-deceptively-similar.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/not-deceptively-similar.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/not-deceptively-similar.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/286510","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67516"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=286510"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/286510\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/285808"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=286510"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=286510"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=286510"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}