Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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

 

Latest Legal News