Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

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.

Similar News