P1 being the registered proprietor of \u201cCONTIN\u201d family of trademarks, sells Nitroglycerine Tablets under the mark \u201cNITROCONTIN\u201d. P1 submitted that D1 was manufacturing and selling identical tablets under the trademark \u201cCARDIOCONTIN\u201d in a similar white and pink trade dress, as used by P1.<\/p>\n
![\"Photograph](\"http:\/\/bananaip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Nitrocontin-300x300.png\")
<\/p>\n
P1\u2019s NITROCONTIN tablets<\/strong><\/p>\n Further, P1 alleged that D1\u2019s mark \u201cWIN HEALTH PHARMA\u201d and domain name winhealthpharma.com<\/a> were deceptively similar to P2\u2019s registered trademarks \u201cWIN-HEALTH CARE\u201d, \u201cWIN-MEDICARE\u201d, \u201cWIN-NATURALS\u201d, etc.<\/p>\n The plaintiffs submitted that they are the prior adopters, users and registered proprietors of their trademarks. D1 subsequently adopted deceptively similar marks with the intention to ride on the reputation and goodwill of plaintiffs\u2019 established brands.<\/p>\n The Defendants contended that they were the registered proprietors of \u201cWIN HEALTH PHARMA\u201d and were entitled to statutory protection under the Trade Marks Act. They argued that the plaintiffs\u2019 trademark registrations did not give them the right to exclusive use of the words WIN or HEALTHCARE and that the domain name winhealthpharma.com<\/a> was not deceptively similar the plaintiffs\u2019 marks.<\/p>\n Given its market presence, D1 urged the Court to note that consumers associated them with the trade name and the domain name in question. The Defendants also contested the Plaintiff’s suit by asserting that the suit in question was belated since they were using the contentious trademarks since 2012.<\/p>\n The Court noted that it was only required to form a prima facie<\/em> view regarding the tenability of the plea of invalidity of defendants\u2019 registered mark. In view of the ex-parte<\/em> injunction operating against the defendants, the Court held that the defendants\u2019 marks were deceptively similar to the plaintiffs\u2019 marks.<\/p>\n Observing that although D1\u2019s trademarks were registered in class 35, its use was with respect to pharmaceutical products falling within class 5; the Court astutely held that consumer confusion between pharma products would be life threatening<\/strong>.<\/p>\n The Court framed issues pertaining to invalidity of defendants\u2019 registered marks and disposed of the application accordingly.<\/p>\n Citation:<\/strong> Modi-Munipharma Pvt. Ltd. & anr. v. Win Health Pharma & anr. CS(COMM) 197\/2022 & I.A. Nos. 4959\/2022, 4960\/2022, 21819\/2022 & 4172\/2023 (Delhi High Court, 13-11-2024). Available athttps:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/146648801\/<\/a><\/p>\n Authored by Ms. Charishma, Associate, Innovation, Consulting & Strategy, BananaIP Counsels<\/strong><\/p>\n The case note\/s in this blog post have been written by IP Attorneys at BananaIP Counsels based on their review and understanding of the Judgments. It may be noted that other IP attorneys and experts in the field may have different opinions about the cases or arrive at different conclusions therefrom. It is advisable to read the Judgments before making any decisions based on the case notes.<\/p>\nDefendant’s contentions<\/strong><\/h4>\n
Court’s analysis<\/strong><\/h4>\n
Conclusion<\/strong><\/h4>\n
Disclaimer<\/strong><\/h4>\n