Lack Of Title Documents In Lal Dora Land Does Not Relieve Plaintiff From Proving Continuous Possession To Claim Ownership: Delhi High Court Unauthorized Video Recording Of Court Proceedings Without Prior Permission Amounts To Contempt Of Court: Bombay High Court Finality Of Litigation | State Cannot Re-Litigate Settled Decrees By Alleging Collusion After Affirmation Up To Supreme Court: Allahabad High Court SC/ST Act | Court Cannot Determine Conversion Status To Quash FIR Before Completion Of Investigation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Absence Of Manufacturing Activity And Dilapidated Condition Of Premises Constitute Valid Grounds For Closure: Bombay High Court Non-Disclosure Of Existing Insurance Policies In Proposal Form Entitles Insurer To Repudiate Claim: Calcutta High Court Will Interpretation | Bequest Of "Above Said Property" Includes Entire Estate, Not Just Descriptive Portions Mentioned Therein: Delhi High Court Limitation Act | Court Can Balance Equities By Denying Interest For Delay Period In Land Acquisition Appeals: Gujarat High Court Article 21 Constitution Of India | Personal Liberty Of Detenue Cannot Be Curtailed Without Authority Of Law Post-Acquittal: Jharkhand High Court Order 8 Rule 1A CPC | Trial Court Should Not Reject Documents Merely For Delay If Foundation Is Laid In Pleadings: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order XXII CPC Applies To SCC Suits; Rule 25 Of U.P. Urban Buildings Rules Does Not Govern Substitution Where Act Is Inapplicable: Allahabad High Court Recruitment Authorities Cannot Insist On Impossible Experience Criteria: Karnataka High Court Rules Against Rejection Of Motor Vehicle Inspector Candidates Order 38 Rule 8 CPC | Claim Petition Cannot Be Allowed Ex-Parte Without Adjudication On Merits: Kerala High Court Succession Certificate Under Section 372 Indian Succession Act Cannot Be Granted When Title Is Subject To Intricate Questions Of Fact And Law: Madras High Court SARFAESI Act | District Magistrate Cannot Adjudicate Disputes Between Borrower And Secured Creditor While Assisting Possession: Madhya Pradesh High Court Termination Based On Caste Status Without Cancellation Of Original Certificate Is Legally Unsustainable: Orissa High Court Section 13 Punjab Village Common Lands Act | Civil Court Jurisdiction Not Ousted In Private Injunction Suits Where Title Against Panchayat Is Not Sought: High Court Rights Of Persons With Disabilities Act  | Equal Opportunity Policy Of Employer Is Mandatory; Routine Transfer Policy Must Yield To Special Provisions For Caregivers: Rajasthan High Court Compensation Must Be Just, Not A Pittance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Award In Motor Accident Claim Registration Act | Sub-Registrar Has No Power To Adjudicate Title Or Refuse Registration Based On Unauthorized Layouts: Telangana High Court Section 50 NDPS Act | Failure To Individually Communicate Right To Be Searched Before Gazetted Officer Or Magistrate Vitiates Conviction: Telangana 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