Trial Courts Must Award Just Compensation In POCSO Cases Beyond Fine Amounts; Interim Payment No Reason To Deny Final Relief: Madras High Court Section 482 CrPC Power Not For Conducting 'Mini-Trial'; Disputed Facts Must Be Adjudicated At Trial: Allahabad High Court Right To Walk On Demarcated Footpaths Is A Fundamental Right; Municipal Authorities Under Enforceable Duty To Provide Pedestrian Infrastructure: Supreme Court Right To Walk Is A Fundamental Right Under Articles 19(1)(d) & 21; Priority Over Motorised Vehicles: Supreme Court Municipal Commissioner Is Disciplinary Authority For All Employees Post-1993 Amendment; Existing Regulations Can't Fetter Statutory Power: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Force Plaintiff To Accept Monetary Compensation Instead Of Removal Of Encroachment Without Prayer: Supreme Court Recruitment Merit Is Not A Vested Right; Public Interest Justifies Disclosing Marks Of Candidates Outside Selection Zone: Supreme Court Special Police Establishment Not An 'Intelligence & Security Organisation', State Cannot Exempt It From RTI Act: Supreme Court Medical Practitioner Not Negligent Merely Because Result Was A Failure If Procedure Adopted Was Acceptable To Medical Science: Calcutta High Court Long Service Cannot Be Denied Regularization On Mere Technicalities If Appointment Wasn't Illegal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejection Of Nomination Paper Can Only Be Challenged Through Election Petition; Article 329(b) Bars Writ Jurisdiction: Supreme Court NI Act | Benefit Of Presumptions Under Sections 118 & 139 Not Available If Complainant Lacks Direct Knowledge Of Transaction: Kerala High Court Landowners Entitled To Solatium Under National Highways Act; Failure To Grant Is Ground To Challenge Award Under Section 34: MP High Court Transfer Policy Only Broad Guideline, Not Enforceable Under Article 226/227 In Absence Of Mala Fides: Rajasthan High Court

Similarity in sound could mislead consumers into believing that ‘VIGOURA’ is either a variant of, associated with, or endorsed by the makers of ‘VIAGRA’: Delhi High Court Restrains Use of ‘VIGOURA’

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 

The Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling on trademark infringement and passing off today, has granted a permanent injunction against Renovision Exports Pvt. Ltd., preventing the use of the mark “VIGOURA” or any similar sounding mark. The order was passed after it was found that “VIGOURA” was phonetically, visually, and conceptually similar to “VIAGRA”, a registered trademark of Pfizer Products Inc., potentially leading to consumer confusion.

Pfizer Products Inc., recognized globally for its erectile dysfunction drug “VIAGRA”, argued that “VIGOURA” infringed upon its well-established trademark rights. Pfizer’s primary contention was based on the similarity of the marks which could mislead the consumers into associating the two products, despite one being an allopathic medicine and the other homeopathic.

Justice Sanjeev Narula noted the significant similarity between the two marks and the fact that both products target the same consumer segment, increasing the likelihood of confusion regarding the source and affiliation of the products. The judgment stated, “The trademarks ‘VIGOURA’ and ‘VIAGRA’ exhibit a high degree of phonetic similarity… This phonetic resemblance is particularly concerning in the pharmaceutical industry, where the precise identification of products is crucial for consumer safety and confidence.”

 

The court also held that Pfizer had established a transborder reputation of “VIAGRA” that extended into India prior to the Defendants’ adoption of “VIGOURA”, leading to a clear case of passing off. The Defendants’ use of “VIGOURA” was seen as a deliberate attempt to capitalize on the goodwill and reputation of “VIAGRA”.

While Pfizer sought damages of Rs. 20 lakhs, the court awarded nominal damages of Rs. 3,00,000 due to the absence of detailed evidence for specific loss amounts. Additionally, actual litigation costs were awarded to Pfizer, underlining the acknowledgment of infringement and passing off by the Defendants.

The judgment culminates in a strong reinforcement of trademark protections, particularly in industries where consumer health and safety are at stake. Pfizer’s victory underscores the importance of safeguarding global brand identities from potential infringement and confusion in different markets.

Date of Decision: May 1, 2024

Pfizer Products Inc. vs. Renovision Exports Pvt. Ltd.

Latest Legal News