Bombay High Court Restrains Indian Company From Using Trademark Similar To Global Pharmaceutical Brand ‘SERVIER’
Bombay High Court Restrains Indian Company From Using Trademark Similar To Global Pharmaceutical Brand ‘SERVIER’
The Bombay High Court recently issued an injunction against an Indian company, restraining it from using a trademark that is deceptively similar to that of an international pharmaceutical company, underscoring the court's primary duty to protect the public.
In an order passed by Justice Riyaz Chagla, Sefier Life Science Private Ltd., an Indian company manufacturing and exporting medicines, was restrained from using a mark that allegedly infringed upon the trademark of the plaintiff, Les Laboratories Servier. The plaintiff is an international and independent pharmaceutical group governed by a non-profit foundation, operating in about 150 countries with over 22,000 employees worldwide.
The dispute centered around the plaintiff's trademark "SERVIER," which was allegedly infringed by the defendant's mark "SEFIER."
The court, in its interim order dated July 19, stated, "A bare perusal of the plaintiffs' trade mark 'Servier' and the defendant's impugned trade mark 'Sefier' leaves no manner of doubt that the rival trademarks are phonetically, aurally, visually, and structurally similar. This becomes apparent from the fact that the starting letters and the ending letters of the rival marks are the same, and hence there is a greater chance of confusion and deception."
Given that the goods involved are medicinal and pharmaceutical products, the court emphasized the need for a stricter approach to assess the possibility of confusion among consumers. The court cited established rules for comparing medicinal or pharmaceutical products, as laid down by various judgments of the High Court and the Supreme Court.
"Amongst the principles is that the similarity and confusion between the products should be examined from the point of view of an ordinary common man of average intelligence rather than that of a specialized medical practitioner. The mere existence of the slightest probability of confusion in the case of medical product marks requires that the use of the mark be restrained, especially since the primary duty of the Court is towards the public and the purity of the register," the court stated.
The court dismissed the defendant's argument that its products, being sold under medical prescription as Schedule H drugs, would not cause confusion. "It is well settled that physicians, doctors, and chemists are not immune to confusion or mistake," the court remarked.
Additionally, the court noted that although the defendant has been exporting its products to African countries, the plaintiff has secured trademark registrations in numerous countries worldwide, including in African nations such as Algeria, Kenya, Madagascar, Morocco, Namibia, and Mozambique.
With these observations, the court restrained the defendants from using the plaintiff's trademark.
