Phonetic Similarity Can Cause Consumer Confusion,” Rules Delhi High Court in SUN PHARMA vs PROTRITION Trademark Dispute

136
0
Share:
fir bail transport pay Public T20 World Cup v Pay Video School company Human Rape Sexual Taxable Evidence Tax Statement property students Policy Bail Bail cheques Police Accident Service Claim Trademark Cognizance smuggling NI Eviction Agreement Minister Acid spa Old Delhi HC MBBS DivorceLand Child Evidence Bail Senior Marriage Maintenance Application Property Exam Evidence Divorce doctrine pocso award Medical public Income Tax constable National bailUniversity Property Recovery Evidence Adopted v Payment territorial corporation Bail liability police bank Constitutionality child nature claim domestic Limitation bsnl traffic property railway legal landlords Relationship Citizen property Tax custody phonetic predicate Acquisition forum public asset tax wire eligibility violence physical financial second trademark person Corpus Director TDS policy entertainment parody games recovery 14 tax judiciary claims court bar 34 Raps advertisement employees salary mother rape decisions students 138 divorce bail CBI fir evidence evidence eviction drc lower doctors legal investigation civil copyright

In a significant ruling on trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court has emphasized the importance of phonetic similarity in trademarks and its potential to cause consumer confusion. The court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar, delivered a judgment in the case of SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD vs PROTRITION PRODUCTS LLP & ORS, involving a contentious dispute over the trademarks ‘ABZORB’ and ‘ABBZORB’.

In the detailed judgment dated 24th November 2023, Justice Shankar observed, “Phonetic identity between two marks is, even by itself, sufficient to justify a finding of likelihood of confusion.” This observation came as the court considered the similarities between SUN PHARMA’s ‘ABZORB’ and PROTRITION’s ‘ABBZORB’ marks. The court’s analysis centered around the potential for these phonetically similar marks to confuse the consumer, despite differences in their visual representation and the nature of the products they represent.

The plaintiff, SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD, holds the registration for ‘ABZORB’ in Class 5, used for pharmaceutical preparations. The defendants, PROTRITION PRODUCTS LLP & ORS, have registered ‘ABBZORB’ in Classes 29 and 30 but have extended its use to Class 5 products like whey protein, where it overlaps with the plaintiff’s category.

In a pivotal part of the judgment, the court stated, “The sole extra letter ‘B’ in the defendants’ ABBZORB, as compared to the plaintiff’s ABZORB, is hardly likely to impress itself on the psyche of a consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection.” This statement underscored the court’s approach towards determining the likelihood of confusion from the consumer’s perspective, which is a crucial factor in cases of trademark infringement.

As a result of these findings, the court granted an interim injunction, restraining the defendants from using ‘ABBZORB’, ‘ABBZORB NUTRITION’, and any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s ‘ABZORB’ for related products, pending the disposal of the suit.

 Date : 24 November 2023

SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD VS  PROTRITION PRODUCTS LLP & ORS.

Download Judgment

Share: