Similar Name of Medicines: HC has resolved the conflict resolved between 'GLOEYE’ and 'GLOTAB’

July 11,2019:

Confusion between the medicines is always life-threatening. In Sun Pharma vs. Ajanta Pharma, the court ordered an interim injunction. The dispute in the present case is in respect of two products used by patients of the age-related dimness of vision and diabetic retinopathy. They are sold under the trademarks 'GLOEYE’ and 'GLOTAB’. Both are ocular medicines.

The use by the Defendant is since 2013. The Plaintiff filed the present suit in 2014 and sought an interim injunction. The parties explored mediation, which failed. Then Plaintiff sought amendment in the suit to add averments. The Court denied allowing any averments. The case is based on passing off and trademark. The FSS Act is also analysed to determine the safety of the ingredients.

‘GLOEYE’ the mark was registered in class 5 in the year 2005. The Plaintiff's product is an anti-oxidant tablet which is taken for the age-related dimness of vision and diabetic retinopathy. The Defendant uses the mark ‘GLOTAB’ also for a sane reason. The Defendant applied for the mark on 23rd July 2008, on a proposed to be the used basis and the mark was registered on 14th January 2011 In case of averments, the Court noticed that GLOEYE is a health supplement whereas GLOTAB prescription medicine in respect of a specific formulation.

The Court found that there is no scope of expansion as the initial suit being in respect of trademark infringement and passing off, any submissions in respect of the trade-dress would be included in the relief of passing off for being argued at the final stage. Next both the parties filed a cancellation petition to cancel the marks. The Learned Counsel on behalf of the plaintiff pointed out that the “GLO” word created confusion among the consumers. The plaintiff prayed for an interim injunction and accused the defendant of infringement.

In regards to the prayer, the Court held that as both are registered trademark so no infringement case stands here. The Court compared both products and found that both are of the same class of ocular medicine. It was also observed that the suffix “Eye” and “Tab” are insufficient to create any difference between the two trademarks. The plaintiff was entitled to an interim injunction as the Court ordered in favour of the plaintiff. For reference, the Court considered many cases.

To visit, Trademarkclick.com, Click Here