- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Inttl Advocare successfully represented Sun Pharma at the Delhi High Court in trademark infringement suit against Mylan Laboratories
Inttl Advocare successfully represented Sun Pharma at the Delhi High Court in trademark infringement suit against Mylan Laboratories
The contention was between the words ‘’Oxiplat’ and ‘Soxplat’
In an infringement suit filed against Mylan Laboratories Ltd. & Anr, the Delhi High Court has awarded the plaintiff Sun Parma Laboratories Ltd. a cost of Rs. 5 lakhs to be paid by Mylan Laboratories within eight weeks.
In the suit titled Sun Parma Laboratories Ltd. vs. Mylan Laboratories Limited & Anr., the plaintiff sought the protection of its registered trademark ‘Oxiplat’ while discovering the registered mark of the defendant, Mylan Laboratories Ltd. ‘Soxplat’ to be deceptively similar to their mark.
The Court passed the order bearing in mind the circumstances where initially no interim injunction was granted and post the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order to cancel the defendant’s mark, where ‘Soxplat’ is no longer in use.
In 2001, the plaintiff had associated ‘Oxiplat’ with its medicinal preparations, which consisted of Oxaliplatin and was used for the treatment of cancer. In 2014, during a field analysis, the plaintiff came across the defendant’s ‘Soxplat’. Thereafter, it initiated legal proceedings against it.
Initially, the plaintiff filed an interim application, which was rejected. Also, the appeal was rejected, wherein the Court observed no similarity between both marks. The medicines of both the parties were accessible only through a prescription. Thus, no one was capable of confusing or mispronouncing ‘Oxiplat’ as ‘Soxplat’ or vice-versa.
The suit stands pending and since then, the plaintiff and the defendant have sought cancellation of each other’s mark.
However, in 2020, the IPAB ruled in favor of the plaintiff by cancelling ‘Soxplat’ whereinafter the plaintiff’s counsel Hemant Singh claimed that the defendant could no longer use their mark as it did not contest the same. The proceedings of the IPAB would, therefore, operate as res-judicata.
Subsequently, the defendant claimed to give up the use of the mark ‘Soxplat’ and did not intend to use it further.
The team from Inttl Advocare appearing for Sun Pharma comprised of Hemant Singh (Founder and Managing Partner), Waseem Shuaib Ahmed, (Managing Associate), and Sambhav Jain and Anuraj Tirthankar, (Senior Associates).