The High Court of Delhi has permanently restrained the use of the "Vigoura" mark by a homeopathic drug manufacturer for selling its medicine for sexual disorders.
The High Court's decision came on a lawsuit for trademark infringement filed by Pfizer Products Inc., which sells a well-recognised erectile dysfunction allopathic drug under the "Viagra" trademark.
Noting that there was a "strong potential" for confusion between the two names because of their resemblances & overlap in commercial operations, Justice Sanjeev Narula directed Renovision Exports Private Limited not to use "Vigoura" or any other mark that is "deceptively similar" to Pfizer's trademark "Viagra".
It also ruled that the plaintiff shall be entitled to nominal damages of Rs 3 lakh, recoverable jointly & severally from the defendant entity.
"The defendants or anyone acting on their behalf are permanently restrained from manufacturing, selling or offering for sale, marketing, advertising or in any other manner using the mark 'VIGOURA' or any mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark 'VIAGRA' in relation to any of their goods as would amount to infringement or passing off of the plaintiff's registered mark 'VIAGRA'," the court said in its order passed on Wednesday.
The HC said, "Plaintiff's trademark 'VIAGRA' is highly recognised by its name in the sphere of erectile dysfunction drugs. They have invested heavily in building a brand & owing to its success, 'VIAGRA' has acquired national & global repute. Consequently, the defendants' subsequent adoption of the impugned mark with the knowledge of the plaintiff's existence warrants an award of damages in the plaintiff's favour".
It observed that there was material that successfully proved Pfizer's status as the proprietor of the "Viagra" trademark & the company's successful registration in India further proved its exclusive ownership over the mark here.
The Court said "Vigoura" & "Viagra" exhibited a high degree of phonetic similarity that could mislead consumers into believing that the former was either a variant of or endorsed by the makers of "Viagra".
Further, the overall length of the words & their similar letter arrangements can cause confusion at a glance, especially in environments where consumers make quick decisions, such as online searches or pharmacy purchases, the Judge added.
He said, "This initial confusion can occur regardless of the consumer's overall awareness or knowledge of the differences between allopathic & homeopathic remedies. In such scenarios, while the consumer might understand the distinctions between the kinds of treatment (allopathic versus homeopathic), the resemblance in the ailment intended to be cured & the names or trademarks can induce an association between the two products, based on perceived endorsements or verbal accounts or recommendations".
"In view of the resemblances between the two trademarks & the overlap in the field of use & commercial operations, as elucidated above, there is a strong potential for confusion amongst the general public. Thus, the court answers this issue in favour of the plaintiff & against the defendants, holding that the defendants' 'VIGOURA' mark infringes the plaintiff's registered 'VIAGRA' mark under sections 29(1) & 29(2)(b) of the Trademarks Act," the Court concluded.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the LatestLaws staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Source Link
Picture Source :
