Intellectual Property Rights
Bombay High Court granted a motion in favour of Lupin Limited, maker of ‘Nebistar’ line of medicines. It determined Lupin’s registered mark and ‘Nebistol’, manufactured by the Defendants, had “phonetic, visual and structural similarity”. The Court rejected Defendants’ submission that ‘-star’ and ‘-stol’ were distinct, making the marks themselves dissimilar. The Court reiterated that under the principles of comparison laid down, the question of deceptive similarity would be based on the average intelligence and imperfect recollection of an unwary purchaser. Both marks would have to be looked at in totality, and within the auspices of imperfect pronunciation, arising out of imperfect recollection and other fallibilities of the shopper.
Relevant
Durga Dutta Sharma v. Navaratna Pharma
Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta
Section 11 Trade Marks Act, 1999
Sources: Manupatra Newsline
Bombay High Court granted a motion in favour of Lupin Limited, maker of ‘Nebistar’ line of medicines. It determined Lupin’s registered mark and ‘Nebistol’, manufactured by the Defendants, had “phonetic, visual and structural similarity”. The Court rejected Defendants’ submission that ‘-star’ and ‘-stol’ were distinct, making the marks themselves dissimilar. The Court reiterated that under the principles of comparison laid down, the question of deceptive similarity would be based on the average intelligence and imperfect recollection of an unwary purchaser. Both marks would have to be looked at in totality, and within the auspices of imperfect pronunciation, arising out of imperfect recollection and other fallibilities of the shopper.
Relevant
Durga Dutta Sharma v. Navaratna Pharma
Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta
Section 11 Trade Marks Act, 1999
Sources: Manupatra Newsline
No comments:
Post a Comment