Topic
Deceptive similarity in Indian trademark law refers to when one mark is so similar to another that it is likely to confuse consumers about the source of goods or services, especially in pharmaceuticals.
The Bombay HC ordered rectification of LEFOXIN BIOX, holding it deceptively similar to Glaxo's 1956 LANOXIN mark under the stricter Cadila pharma test. Export sales constitute use in India under Section 56(1), but removal is deferred to December 31, 2026 for rebranding.
The Delhi High Court held that ACNE SCAR/ACNE+SCAR/ACNESCAR is deceptively similar to ACNESTAR, applying the essential features test despite get-up variations, and granted an interim injunction with a two-month stock recall.
The Division Bench affirmed the Single Judge’s finding that ‘NOVIETS’ is deceptively similar to the well-known mark ‘NOVARTIS’, considering visual and phonetic resemblance in the pharmaceutical sector. The court reiterated that appellate interference with interim injunctions is warranted only where the order is perverse or ignores settled principles, dismissing the appeal filed by Noviets Pharma.
Kerala High Court rules that trademark registrations in different classes (goods vs services) do not immunize infringers from liability. The court emphasizes deceptive similarity, prior use, and passing off as key determinants, reinforcing that trademark protection extends beyond class boundaries where consumer confusion is likely.
The Bombay High Court granted a permanent injunction against Zenlabs India for using 'ZENOX' on pharmaceuticals, finding it deceptively similar to Glenmark's registered mark 'ZINOX'. The ruling reinforces that minor spelling variations in drug trademarks can constitute passing off when consumer confusion is likely, setting a clear precedent for brand protection in the pharma sector.
Bombay HC reinstates an interim injunction against 'ESIRAFT', ruling that phonetic similarity with 'RACIRAFT' creates consumer confusion in pharmaceuticals, even with a shared generic suffix. The court strictly applied the Cadila Health Care test, emphasizing heightened scrutiny for drug-related trademarks to prevent public health risks.
Delhi High Court cancels 'GOLDI' trademark registrations, ruling that prior commercial use of 'GOLDIEE' prevails over later registration, even if marks are deceptively similar. The judgment underscores that non-response by the registered proprietor and overlapping trade channels strengthen the prior user's claim under the Trade Marks Act.
Bombay HC rules that exporting goods bearing a deceptively similar trademark from India qualifies as 'use' under Section 56 of the Trade Marks Act, entitling the plaintiff to an interim injunction. The judgment clarifies that territorial use is not a prerequisite for infringement, impacting exporters and trademark holders in cross-border disputes.
Bombay HC rules that pharmaceutical trademarks require the 'lowest threshold of confusion' to protect public health, granting interim injunction against LIVOGEM for its deceptive similarity to LIVOGEN. The judgment reinforces strict scrutiny for marks in the pharmaceutical sector, where even minor confusion can pose significant risks.
Delhi High Court holds that mere use of a term as corporate trade name, without source-identifying trademark use, cannot support cancellation or injunction claims under Trade Marks Act, 1999.