Summary
This post examines the Delhi High Court’s decision in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Dua Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., a significant trademark infringement dispute in India’s pharmaceutical sector. Ranbaxy, the registered owner of the CALMPOSE trademark, challenged Dua Pharmaceuticals’ use of the similar mark CALMPROSE, citing likelihood of confusion and deceptive similarity in both name and packaging. The court, after analysing the facts, held in favour of Ranbaxy and issued an injunction restraining Dua from selling CALMPROSE. The judgment emphasises the importance of consumer protection and the need for careful scrutiny in cases of near identical trademarks, especially in the pharmaceutical industry. The post also highlights the distinct factual approach required in each passing off and trademark similarity matter.
First Publication Date: 4th September 2008
CASE FACTS:
Ranbaxy Laboratories, a well-known pharmaceutical company, manufactured the CNS depressant Diazapem in 5 mg tablets and sold them under the trade name of CALMPOSE. The trade mark of CALMPOSE was registered in 1970 and has been in use since then. The company made about 40 crores selling the drug under this trade name. The medicine was packaged with aluminum foil on one side and polythene film on the other in colors of silver and brown.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
When a trade mark is too identical or too similar to an already registered well-known trademark it is an infringement of the original trade mark.
ANALYSIS:
The Delhi High court issued an interim injunction restraining Dua Pharmaceuticals from selling the drugs. Dua Pharmaceuticals contested the injunction on the ground that CALMPROSE is a prescription drug which is not available over the counter and unless the customer specifically asked for it, it would not be sold, thus minimizing the chance of the customer getting deceived. And that the name CALMPROSE is phonetically different from CALMPOSE.
Image Source/Attribution here (Governed by Creative Commons License CC BY – SA 3.0)