Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction in Trademark Infringement Case: AZIWOK vs. AZIWAKE

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling on trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction in favor of Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited, against Smart Laboratories Pvt Ltd. The Court’s decision, pronounced on November 16, 2023, in case number CS(COMM) 744/2023, addresses the contentious issue of phonetic similarity between two pharmaceutical products: ‘AZIWOK’ and ‘AZIWAKE’.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar, presiding over the case, underscored the importance of distinctiveness in pharmaceutical trademarks due to potential consumer confusion. “The existence, or otherwise, of confusion is required to be assessed at the ‘initial interest’ stage,” Justice Shankar observed, highlighting the risks associated with confusion in medicinal products.

The plaintiff, Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited, holds the registered trademark ‘AZIWOK’, used for azithromycin pharmaceutical products. The defendant, Smart Laboratories Pvt Ltd, was alleged to have infringed upon this trademark with their product named ‘AZIWAKE’. The Court’s analysis leaned heavily on the phonetic similarity of the two marks, considering the potential for confusion among consumers, especially given the critical nature of pharmaceutical products.

Applying the ‘Pianotist’ test, Justice Shankar noted, “To the ear of the consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, it is clear that the words ‘AZIWOK’ and ‘AZIWAKE’ are phonetically deceptively similar.” This observation formed a crucial part of the rationale for granting the injunction.

In balancing the equities, the Court found that the balance of convenience and irreparable harm favored the plaintiff. “Continuing infringement, by the defendant, of the plaintiff’s mark, is likely to dilute its brand value,” Justice Shankar stated, highlighting the inadequate nature of monetary compensation in such cases.

However, the Court allowed the defendant to sell their existing stock of ‘AZIWAKE’ already in the market, subject to specific compliance requirements.

Date of Decision: 16 November 2023

DR REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED VS  SMART LABORATORIES PVT LTD

 

Similar News