Court Issues Perpetual Injunction Against Anrose Pharma for Using Deceptively Similar Trademark "Zerovol-P"
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has issued a perpetual injunction against Anrose Pharma, restraining them from using the trademark "Zerovol-P," which was found to be deceptively similar to IPCA Laboratories Limited's registered trademark "Zerodol." The judgment, delivered by Justice Arif S. Doctor, emphasized the visual and phonetic similarities between the two marks, which were used for identical goods in the pharmaceutical sector, leading to a likelihood of confusion and deception.
The case was filed by IPCA Laboratories, claiming that Anrose Pharma's use of "Zerovol-P" was an attempt to trade upon the goodwill and reputation of its well-established "Zerodol" brand. The court noted that both trademarks were employed in the marketing of medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations, specifically for pain relief and management, which heightened the risk of consumer confusion.
Despite being duly served, Anrose Pharma failed to appear in court or file a defense, resulting in the suit being listed as undefended. IPCA Laboratories presented evidence through Mr. Harish Kamath, the company's secretary, to substantiate its claim of trademark infringement and passing off. The court accepted the evidence, including sales invoices and promotional materials, which demonstrated the extensive use and distinctiveness of the "Zerodol" trademark.
The judgment referenced several precedents, including the Supreme Court's decisions in cases like "K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Shri Ambal & Co." and "Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satyadeo," which provided guidelines for assessing deceptive similarity in trademarks. The court concluded that the phonetic resemblance between "Zerodol" and "Zerovol-P" was likely to cause confusion among consumers, particularly given the nature of the goods involved.
In addition to granting the injunction, the court ordered Anrose Pharma to pay IPCA Laboratories costs amounting to Rs. 15,00,000, highlighting the stricter stance required due to the potential public health implications of trademark confusion in pharmaceutical products. The court also imposed an interest rate of 8% in case of delayed payment, underscoring the importance of compliance with the order.
Justice Doctor's ruling reiterated the need for stringent protection of intellectual property rights, especially in the pharmaceutical industry, where consumer safety is paramount. The decision serves as a reminder of the legal obligations companies face in respecting trademark registrations and the consequences of failing to do so.
Bottom Line:
Trademark infringement and passing off - Plaintiff's registered trademark "Zerodol" held infringed by Defendant's mark "Zerovol-P" due to visual and phonetic similarity.
Statutory provision(s):
- Trademark Act, 1999
- Commercial Courts Act, 2015
- Section 35 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (as amended)
IPCA Laboratories Limited v. Anrose Pharma, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2833444
