Limitation For Executing Partition Decree Not Suspended Till Engrossment; Right To Seek Engrossment Subsists During 12-Year Execution Period: Allahabad HC Unilateral Revocation Of Registered Gift Deed Through Sub-Registrar Is Void, Donor Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mediation Cannot Be Forced Upon Unwilling Party In Civil Suits; Consent Of Both Sides Essential: Bombay High Court Unmarried Daughter Not Entitled To Freedom Fighter Pension If Gainfully Employed At Time Of Father's Death: Calcutta High Court Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Denied For Lack Of Formal Divorce From First Marriage: Delhi High Court ONGC Cannot Demand Security From Award Holder After Giving ‘No Objection’ To Withdrawal Of Deposited Amount: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sedative Drugs Like Tramadol Impact Mental Fitness Of Declarant; Bombay High Court Acquits Man Relying On Doubtful Dying Declarations Postal Tracking Report Showing 'Refusal' Not Conclusive Proof Of Service If Denied On Oath: Delhi High Court Encroachments Near Military Installations Pose National Security Threat; Remove Illegal Constructions Within Three Months: Rajasthan High Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs State To Decide On Legality Of Charging Fees For Downloading FIRs From 'SAANJH' Portal Wife’s Educational Qualifications No Bar To Seeking Maintenance If Actual Employment Is Not Proven: Orissa High Court Mere Telephonic Contact Without Substance Of Conversation Cannot Establish Criminal Conspiracy: Madhya Pradesh High Court Serious Allegations Like HIV/AIDS Imputations Require Corroboration, Cannot Rest Solely On Unsubstantiated Testimony: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Refuse Mutual Consent Divorce Merely Because Parties Are Living Separately 'Without Valid Reason': Kerala High Court Collective Attempts By Advocates To Overbear Presiding Officer Not Protected Professional Conduct: Madras High Court Dismisses Quash Petitions No Legal Evidence Required To Forward A Person To Trial? Rajasthan HC Slams Police For Implicating Accused In NDPS Case Solely On Co-Accused's Statement Accused Must Be Physically Present In Court To Furnish Bonds Under Section 91 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana 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