Inability To Trace Beneficiaries Cannot Defeat Or Postpone Compensation Disbursal: Supreme Court Directs High Court Suo Motu Proceedings Disability Pension | Mere Manifestation Of Disease During Military Service Without Causal Connection Is Not Sufficient For Entitlement: Supreme Court Prevention Of Corruption Act | Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Without Proof Of Demand Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Appointment Contrary To Statutory Requirements And Advertisement Terms Amounts To Fraud On Public: Supreme Court IT Act | Once Settlement Commission Admits Application Under Section 245C, Assessing Officer Loses Jurisdiction To Reopen Assessment Under Section 148: Supreme Court NDPS Act | Prosecution Must Establish Unbroken Chain Of Custody For Samples, Failure To Comply With Section 52-A Renders FSL Report Inadmissible: Supreme Court Section 180 BNSS | Investigating Officers Must Adopt Transparent Practices; DGP Should Consider Making Audio-Video Recording Of Witness Statements Mandatory: Allahabad High Court Rowdy Sheet Cannot Be Opened In A Mechanical Manner Based On Mere Pendency Of Two Criminal Cases: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Surname Protection Under Section 35 Trade Marks Act Not Restricted To Natural Persons': Bombay High Court Allows Corporate Body To Use Family Name Circumstantial Evidence | Prosecution Must Prove Connectivity Between Accused And Crime, Mere 'Last Seen' Theory Insufficient: Calcutta High Court Section 482 BNSS | Criminal Prosecution Against Company Directors Cannot Be Quashed When Investigation Reveals Active Role Beyond Mere Designation: Delhi High Court Cannot Be Permitted To Patch Up Weak Points: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Belated Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Plea Order XXI Rule 90 CPC | Burden To Prove Material Irregularity Or Fraud In Court Auction Sale Lies Upon Judgment Debtor: Kerala High Court Departmental Instructions Not Being Mandatory, Non-Compliance Does Not Vitiate Enquiry If Guilt Is Proved By Other Cogent Evidence: Delhi High Court Doctrine Of Res Gestae | Hearsay Evidence Can Be Admissible If Statement Is Spontaneous And Contemporaneous With The Occurrence: Madras High Court Relatives Cannot Be Roped Into Matrimonial Disputes On The Basis Of Omnibus Allegations: Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Discharge Victim In Private Complaint Case Entitled To File Appeal Against Acquittal Before Sessions Court U/S 372 CrPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Remand, Entitles Accused To Bail: Orissa High Court Section 18 Limitation Act | Acknowledgement Of Loan In Promissory Note Extends Period Of Limitation For Entire Debt: Delhi High Court Section 138 NI Act | Existence Of Defence Founded On Disputed Facts Cannot Be Ground To Scuttle Cheque Bounce Prosecution At Inception: 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