{"id":309175,"date":"2023-12-13T13:00:38","date_gmt":"2023-12-13T07:30:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=309175"},"modified":"2023-12-18T14:42:29","modified_gmt":"2023-12-18T09:12:29","slug":"madras-high-court-directs-mark-inimox-registered-for-products-veterinary-use-not-for-human-use","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/13\/madras-high-court-directs-mark-inimox-registered-for-products-veterinary-use-not-for-human-use\/","title":{"rendered":"[INIMOX v IMOX] Madras High Court directs mark “INIMOX” to be registered only for products intended for veterinary use and not for human use"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Madras High Court:<\/span> In an appeal filed under Section 91<\/a> of the Trade marks Act, 1999<\/a>, praying to set aside the order dated 10-03-2015, passed by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, wherein the Registrar rejected the Application for registration of the trade mark “INIMOX”, Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J. , while setting aside the impugned order, directed that the appellant’s mark “INIMOX” shall be registered subject to the condition that the mark shall be used only in respect of products intended for veterinary use and shall not be used in relation to pharmaceutical products intended for human use.<\/p>\n

Background:<\/p>\n

The appellant applied for registration of the word mark “INIMOX” in relation to medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations for veterinary use on a “proposed to be used” basis. The application was accepted for advertisement and was published in Trade Marks Journal notice of opposition objecting to the registration of the above-mentioned mark on the ground that it is the prior user and registered proprietor of the trade mark “IMOX” under Trade Mark in class 5 in respect of pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations with effect from 06-10-1986, and that the impugned mark “INIMOX” is deceptively similar to its mark. The impugned order was issued allowing the opposition and, consequently, refusing the application for registration of the mark “INIMOX”. Thus, the present appeal was filed.<\/p>\n

Issues and Analysis:<\/p>\n

Whether the additional documents sought to be relied on by the appellant can be admitted at the appellate stage?<\/p>\n

The Court noted that Rule 7 (7) of the Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 (‘2022 Rules’), this Court has the power to grant leave to produce additional documents in an appeal.<\/p>\n

The Court said that the appellant had two prior opportunities to place on record all relevant evidence, i.e. either along with the application, or in response to the notice of opposition. Besides, since the trade mark application was made on a “proposed to be used” basis, evidence of use does not advance the case for registration with effect from 02-02-1999. Therefore, the Court permitted reliance on some documents which are in the public domain and would be of value in the adjudication of this appeal.<\/p>\n

On the issue of whether the rejection of registration was justified, the Court noted that the respondent’s product is intended for human consumption, whereas the appellant’s product is intended to be administered only to animals. Further, the Court examined the relative grounds for refusal of registration.<\/p>\n

It said that to decide whether goods are similar, the primary considerations are-<\/p>\n