The Bombay High Court has held that the adoption and use of the trade mark ZEROVOL‑P by Anrose Pharma in respect of pharmaceutical products amounted to a clear case of trademark infringement and passing off of IPCA Laboratories Limited’s registered trade mark ZERODOL. The dispute arose in a commercial intellectual property suit instituted by IPCA Laboratories Limited seeking a permanent injunction against Anrose Pharma for infringement of its registered ZERODOL mark and for passing off. The plaintiff stated that it had coined and adopted the mark ZERODOL in 1992 and had been using it continuously since 2003 in relation to pain relief and pharmaceutical preparations, thereby building substantial goodwill and associating the mark exclusively with its products. In October 2013, the plaintiff discovered that the defendant was manufacturing and selling a pharmaceutical product under the mark ZEROVOL‑P and procured samples along with invoices, placing them on record. Despite service of summons, Anrose Pharma failed to appear or file a written statement, and the suit consequently proceeded as an undefended matter before the court.
During the hearing, the High Court examined the rival marks and found that ZEROVOL‑P was visually and phonetically almost identical to ZERODOL. The court applied settled principles governing deceptive similarity, emphasising that the marks must be compared as a whole from the perspective of a person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection. The essential and dominant feature of the marks was held to be deceptively similar, especially given that both were used for medicinal products. Since the defendant did not attempt to justify its adoption of the impugned mark or establish any honest or bona fide use, and had not entered appearance to contest the evidence, the court concluded that the adoption was dishonest and likely to create confusion in the market. It observed that in matters involving medicinal products, even a likelihood of confusion posed a serious risk to public health, warranting a stricter standard of comparison.
The High Court further held that the plaintiff had successfully established statutory infringement of its registered trademark as well as passing off by the defendant. It noted that the defendant’s absence from the proceedings, despite due service, and failure to cross‑examine the plaintiff’s witness supported an inference of bad faith. While the court declined to award damages in the absence of specific proof of loss, it stressed that the suit being a commercial suit attracted provisions requiring the award of realistic and deterrent costs. The court observed that the defendant’s conduct, coupled with the nature of the products involved, justified a stricter order of costs since consumers and public health were potentially at risk and the plaintiff had suffered from misuse of the mark.
Accordingly, the Bombay High Court decreed the suit in favour of IPCA Laboratories Limited, granting a permanent injunction restraining Anrose Pharma from using the impugned mark. The court also directed the delivery up of infringing material for destruction and imposed costs of ₹15,00,000 on the defendant. The order reflects the court’s firm stance against trademark infringement and dishonest adoption of deceptively similar marks, especially in sectors such as pharmaceuticals where consumer safety and brand integrity are of paramount importance.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.