Claims For Recovery Of Gold Ornaments In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Supported By Probable Evidence; Exaggerated Claims Unsafe: Kerala High Court Naib Tahsildar Performing Quasi-Judicial Duties Is A 'Judge', Protected From Disciplinary Action For Bonafide Errors: Madhya Pradesh High Court Purchaser Estopped From Refusing Delivery Or Payment Of Statutory Taxes After Participating In Machinery Trial Runs: Madras High Court Presumption Of Marriage From Aadhaar, Passports Is Rebuttable; Long Silence Dislodges Marital Claim: Kerala High Court Government Cannot Deny Promotional Benefits To Employee Who Assumes Charge On The Date Of Superannuation: Karnataka High Court Disproportionate Assets 608% More Than Salary Establish 'Proceeds Of Crime' Prima Facie; No Mini-Trial At Discharge Stage: Jharkhand High Court Decree Based On 'Evasive Denial' Improper If Defendant Raises Specific Defenses Going To Root Of Case: J&K & Ladakh High Court Trial Courts Cannot Adjourn Ad-Interim Injunction Petitions For Months While Ordering 'Urgent Notice': Andhra Pradesh High Court Agent Of Court Receiver Who Breaches Undertaking On Nature Of Business Not Entitled To Occupy Premises Without Paying Royalty: Bombay High Court Criminal Antecedents Of A Witness Do Not Operate As Disqualification, Testimony To Be Assessed With Caution Not Suspicion: Calcutta High Court Bar On Raising Benami Defense Under Section 4 Applies To All Suits Filed After 1988 Act, Even For Past Transactions: Allahabad High Court Article 21 Can Trump UAPA Bail Restrictions In Cases Of Prolonged Incarceration: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Activist Khuram Parvez Mere Possession Of Jihad Literature Not An Offence; Cannot Be Tagged With Terrorism Without Evidence Of Criminal Act: Telangana 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