9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Trademark infringement, deceptive similarity, statutory rights violation, temporary injunction Analysis: 1. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant's trade mark 'zexate' is deceptively similar to their registered trademark 'Mexate'. They argued that the defendant adopted 'zexate' to take advantage of the goodwill and reputation of their product. The counsel for the plaintiffs contended that the marks are phonetically, visually, and structurally identical, violating the statutory rights of the first plaintiff. 2. The defendant, through their counsel, argued that the claim of the plaintiffs regarding the uniqueness of the mark 'Mexate' is baseless. They stated that 'zexate' was adopted in 1995 and contains methotrexate sodium, similar to the plaintiff's product. The defendant highlighted that other pharmaceutical companies use similar suffixes like 'trexate' or 'exate', making the marks visually and phonetically distinct. 3. The judgment referred to Section 2(d) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, which defines "deceptively similar" marks. Factors such as nature of marks, resemblance, nature of goods, and class of purchasers are considered in determining deceptive similarity. The judgment emphasized that each case's facts determine the weightage given to these factors. 4. It was noted that both products are Schedule 'H' drugs for cancer treatment, requiring a doctor's prescription. The plaintiffs' claim over the term 'exate' was challenged as it is derived from the active ingredient, methotrexate. The specialized nature of the drugs and their prescription-based sale were crucial factors considered. 5. The judgment highlighted the importance of prefixes in distinguishing marks, especially when suffixes are common. Previous court decisions were cited to emphasize the significance of prefixes in differentiating marks. In this case, the distinct prefixes 'M' and 'Z' in 'Mexate' and 'zexate' were deemed sufficient to prevent confusion, considering the specialized nature of the drugs. 6. After considering all factors and principles laid down by previous decisions, the judge concluded that no temporary injunction was necessary in this case pending the suit's disposal. The application of the plaintiffs was rejected, with the condition that the defendant maintains sales records and provides an undertaking to pay damages if the plaintiffs are found entitled to perpetual injunction later. 7. The judgment dismissed the application with the specified conditions, emphasizing the distinctiveness of the marks, the specialized nature of the products, and the lack of deceptive similarity between 'Mexate' and 'zexate'.
|
