Appellate Court Can Allow Additional Evidence To Ensure Fair Adjudication Even If Not Produced In Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts Under Section 106 BNSS Upon Suspicion Of 'Proceeds Of Crime': Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Penalty For Monthly MGQ Shortfall If Annual Target Met': Supreme Court Upholds Quashing Of Excise Department Demands For Liquor Licensees 'Murder Went Unavenged, But Courts Cannot Convict On Mere Assumptions': Supreme Court Acquits Accused In 1988 Murder Case, Quashes High Court's Remit Order 'NCSC Cannot Pass Mandatory Adjudicatory Orders Directing Payment Of Arrears': Supreme Court Clarifies Commission's Powers Under Article 338 "'Cannot Present Fait Accompli': Supreme Court Upholds Denial Of NOC To Airman For Skipping Prior Permission To Apply For Civil Post" Supreme Court Upholds 2017 Notification For Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearances, Quashes 2021 Office Memorandum As Impermissible Executive Overreach Workman Fails To Prove 240 Days Continuous Work; Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Denial Of Reinstatement For "Abandonment Of Service" Party Cannot Take Contradictory Stands In Same Case, Admissions In Pleadings Bind Them Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC: Telangana High Court Delayed Recovery Of Weapon From Open Space Casts Serious Doubt On Prosecution Story: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Convicts Procedural Irregularities By Public Servants Serve As Circumstantial Evidence Of Conspiracy In Corruption Cases: Kerala High Court Blaming Previous Counsel For Omission Does Not Satisfy 'Due Diligence' Test To Amend Plaint After Trial Commences: Punjab & Haryana High Court Muslim Man's Second Marriage Under Special Marriage Act Void Despite Personal Law Permitting Bigamy: Karnataka High Court Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court Title And Ownership Irrelevant In Suit Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act; Plaint Liable To Be Rejected If Filed Beyond Six Months: Delhi High Court Receipt Of Pension By Widow Can Be Considered To Determine 'Just Compensation' But Not To Deprive Claimants Of Award: Calcutta High Court FSL Report Lacking Scientific Criteria And Data Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Allahabad High Court Issues Directives For Testing Viscera Standard Of Proof In Railway Accident Claims Is Preponderance Of Probabilities, Not Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Gujarat High Court No Second Statutory Appeal Lies Against Conviction By Appellate Court Reversing Acquittal; Revision Is Sole Remedy: Supreme Court Wives' Property Is Their Own, Not Husband's: Supreme Court REJECTS High Court's Succession Formula; Restores Clarity For Christian Inheritance

Phonetic Similarity Can Cause Consumer Confusion," Rules Delhi High Court in SUN PHARMA vs PROTRITION Trademark Dispute

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling on trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court has emphasized the importance of phonetic similarity in trademarks and its potential to cause consumer confusion. The court, presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar, delivered a judgment in the case of SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD vs PROTRITION PRODUCTS LLP & ORS, involving a contentious dispute over the trademarks 'ABZORB' and 'ABBZORB'.

In the detailed judgment dated 24th November 2023, Justice Shankar observed, "Phonetic identity between two marks is, even by itself, sufficient to justify a finding of likelihood of confusion." This observation came as the court considered the similarities between SUN PHARMA's 'ABZORB' and PROTRITION's 'ABBZORB' marks. The court's analysis centered around the potential for these phonetically similar marks to confuse the consumer, despite differences in their visual representation and the nature of the products they represent.

The plaintiff, SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD, holds the registration for 'ABZORB' in Class 5, used for pharmaceutical preparations. The defendants, PROTRITION PRODUCTS LLP & ORS, have registered 'ABBZORB' in Classes 29 and 30 but have extended its use to Class 5 products like whey protein, where it overlaps with the plaintiff's category.

In a pivotal part of the judgment, the court stated, "The sole extra letter ‘B’ in the defendants’ ABBZORB, as compared to the plaintiff’s ABZORB, is hardly likely to impress itself on the psyche of a consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection." This statement underscored the court's approach towards determining the likelihood of confusion from the consumer's perspective, which is a crucial factor in cases of trademark infringement.

As a result of these findings, the court granted an interim injunction, restraining the defendants from using 'ABBZORB', 'ABBZORB NUTRITION', and any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff's 'ABZORB' for related products, pending the disposal of the suit.

Date : 24 November 2023

SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD VS  PROTRITION PRODUCTS LLP & ORS.

 

Latest Legal News