NDPS | Mentioning FIR Number On Memos Before Registration Makes the Entire Recovery Suspect: Himachal Pradesh High Court MACT | Once Deceased Is Proven To Be Skilled Worker, Deputy Commissioner's Wage Notification Is Applicable: P&H HC Bank’s Technical Excuses Can’t Override Employee’s Right to Ex Gratia Under Old Circulars: Bombay High Court Slams Canara Bank’s Rejection of Claim Once Worker Files Affidavit of Unemployment, Burden Shifts to Employer to Prove Gainful Employment: Delhi High Court Grants 17B Relief Despite 12-Year Delay Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Limitation Act | Quasi-Judicial Bodies Cannot Invoke Section 5 Principles Without Express Statutory Grant: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Commencement of Proceedings Triggered by Notice Receipt, Not Section 11 Filing: Supreme Court Strong and Cogent Evidence Must Exist at the Threshold to Deny Bail Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court Appellate Court Under Section 37 Cannot Sit in Appeal Over Arbitral Award on Merits: Supreme Court Affidavit Ratifying Power of Attorney Cannot Be Disowned Later: Supreme Court Orders Specific Performance Despite Earlier Revocation Claims No Law Empowers a Corporation to Haunt a Retiree: Supreme Court Quashes Post-Retirement Disciplinary Action for Want of Jurisdiction Mere Expectation of Higher Bids Can't Justify Cancelling a Valid Auction: Supreme Court Quashes GDA’s Arbitrary Rejection of Highest Bidder Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21, Even in Grave Economic Offences: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Arvind Dham in ₹673 Crore PMLA Case Article 14 | ‘Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midstream’: Supreme Court Quashes Punjab’s Modified Sports Quota Policy for MBBS Admissions Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midway: Supreme Court Quashes Bihar’s Retrospective Recruitment Amendment "Imaginary Ghost" - Court Permits Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram ‘Deepathoon’: Madras High Court 353 IPC | Continuing Prosecution Against Citizens Despite Statutory Findings of Police Atrocities Is Abuse of Process: Kerala High Court Court Cannot Compel Plaintiff to Continue Suit Where No Liberty to File Fresh Suit is Sought: Bombay High Court Claim for Demurrage is Not a Crystallized Debt—Only an Unadjudicated Right to Sue: Andhra Pradesh High Court Declared Foreign Nationals Have No Right to Reside in India: Gauhati High Court Upholds Expulsion of Bangladeshi Woman Without Requiring Deportation Protocols

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