Rockwell Pharmaceuticals restrained from using deceptively similar marks to Danone's 'Protinex'
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has granted a summary judgment in favor of Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd., issuing a permanent injunction against M/s Rockwell Pharmaceuticals and others for infringing on Danone's trademark. The court found that the defendants used marks deceptively similar to Danone's registered trademark 'Protinex,' creating a likelihood of confusion among consumers.
Presiding over the case, Justice Tejas Karia observed that the defendants failed to file a written statement and did not appear in court, leading to an ex-parte decision. The case revolved around the use of the marks 'Protex' and 'Protrilex' by the defendants, which the court determined to be phonetically, visually, and structurally similar to Danone's 'Protinex.' The judgment emphasized that such similarity was likely to confuse consumers and associate the defendants' products with Danone.
Danone, a part of the global Danone Group, has held the trademark 'Protinex' since 1957 and has established substantial goodwill and reputation in the nutrition market. The court noted that the defendants' use of deceptively similar marks was a deliberate attempt to ride on the goodwill of Danone's brand. The court applied the Initial Interest Confusion Test, stating that even brief initial confusion is sufficient to establish deceptive similarity under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The judgment also highlighted that the defendants' failure to participate in the proceedings and their subsequent ex-parte status played a crucial role in the court's decision to grant summary judgment. The court underscored the importance of upholding trademark rights and preventing defendants from benefiting from evasion tactics.
With this ruling, the court has not only restrained the defendants from using the impugned marks but also awarded damages to Danone, reinforcing the protection of established trademarks and deterring infringement.
Bottom line:-
Trade Mark Infringement - Summary Judgment granted in favor of the Plaintiff due to the Defendants' failure to file a written statement and their use of deceptively similar marks that cause a likelihood of confusion and association with the Plaintiff's registered trade mark.
Statutory provision(s): Trade Marks Act, 1999 Sections 29, 135; Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order XIII A
