Part-Time Workers Serving For Decades Entitled To Regularization; 'Uma Devi' Ruling Cannot Be Weaponized To Deny Legitimate Claims: Rajasthan High Court Order Rejecting Or Allowing To Register FIR U/S Section 156(3) CrPC Application Is Not Interlocutory; Criminal Revision Is Maintainable: Punjab & Haryana High Court Default Bail | Failure To Produce Accused During Hearing For Extension Of Remand Time Is Gross Illegality, Violates Article 21: Andhra Pradesh High Court Section 138 NI Act Liability Of Directors Subsists Despite Initiation Of Liquidation Proceedings Against Company: Supreme Court Purchaser Of Property For Valuable Consideration Cannot Be Accused Of Cheating Original Owner If Title Document Is Forged: Supreme Court Appointment Of Minor To Public Post Is Per Se Illegal, Void Ab Initio: Allahabad High Court Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Abdicate Duty To Decide Limitation Objection Merely Because High Court Appointed Arbitrator: Allahabad High Court Deemed Conveyance Cannot Be Restricted To Building Footprint; Must Include Appurtenant Open Spaces Required By Planning Law: Bombay High Court Mere Discovery Of Accused's Presence At A Location Not A 'Fact Discovered' Under Section 27 Evidence Act: Delhi High Court Acquits Official In 1989 Bribe Case Section 307 IPC Is Not A 'Minor Offence' To Section 324 IPC; Accused Cannot Be Convicted For Attempt To Murder If Only Charged With Voluntarily Causing Hurt: Delhi High Court Landowners Under National Highways Act Entitled To 15% Interest On Enhanced Compensation; Denial Is Discriminatory: Punjab & Haryana HC Omission Of Village Name In Gazette Notification No Bar To Laying Transmission Lines If Area Falls 'Around' Notified Route: Orissa High Court NBFCs Cannot Use Force For Vehicle Repossession; Coercive Debt Recovery Violates Right To Livelihood Under Article 21: Uttarakhand High Court Non-Candidates Cannot Be Impleaded As Parties In Election Petitions Even If Allegations Of Impropriety Are Made: J&K&L High Court Lowest Bidder Has No Vested Right To Contract; Budgetary Constraints Valid Ground To Cancel Tender: Jharkhand High Court Confiscation Of Vehicle Under Section 49 Assam Forest Regulation Is Only Temporary; Final Confiscation Requires Conviction Under Section 51: Gauhati High Court Amendment Of Written Statement Cannot Be Allowed After Trial Commences If Facts Were Within Party's Knowledge: Delhi High Court

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