pharmaceutical trademark cases

---

Cadila Health Care Ltd. V. Cadila Pharmaceutical Ltd

This is a landmark case of the pharmaceutical sector in which the Supreme Court has prescribed certain guidelines to be followed for adjudication of matters related to deceptive similarity between two pharmaceutical products. The parties in this case were the successors of the Cadila group. The defendant was selling a medicine named “Falcitab”, which was very similar to the name of the medicine called “Falcigo'' manufactured by the Plaintiff. This was the reason for the dispute between both the parties.

Both the medicines were used to treat the same disease. Hence, the plaintiff demanded injunction on the ground that the defendant’s medicine name “Falcitab '' is creating confusion in the minds of the consumers. Defendant, on this, in his defense, stated that the prefix “Falci '' has been taken from the name of the disease i.e. Falcipharam malaria.

Furthermore, the medicine was to be supplied to the hospitals and clinics only and thus, the possibility of arising confusion and deception between the two products does not arise. The Court observed that taking into consideration the vast population of India, probabilities of medical negligence, medical professions changing infrastructure because of language, etc, it is very necessary that confusion of Trade Marks with regards to medicines, pharmaceuticals and drugs should be strictly prohibited.

The court further held that deciding whether trademark of medicinal products are confusing and deceptive in nature should not be based on the test for checking the deceptive similarity of non-medicinal products and extra caution and care should be exercised with regards to medical products and the brands names that are phonetically similar shall be considered as deceptively similar as the medicinal products may cause disastrous effects on one’s health whereas, the non-medicinal products may only cause economic harm. The apex court further stated that the following factors are to be considered while deciding the deceptively similarity of the unregistered trademark:

• The nature of the marks
• The degree of resemblances
• Similarity in nature
• Class of purchaser
• The mode of purchasing the goods.

Further apex court remitted the case to trial court for final decision and disposed of the appeal.