<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nIn today’s age of competitive marketing, a variety of tactics are used to capture consumers\u2019 attention. Non-traditional trademarks are also playing a role in the same. Non-traditional trademarks exist beyond the scope of standard trademarks. These include marks based on shape, sound, smell, taste, and texture. In recent years, pharmaceutical businesses have started using advanced and novel strategies to differentiate their products from those belonging to competitors. As a result, pharmaceutical companies are depending on non-traditional trademarks to stay ahead of the curve, in addition to merely the brand name or drug name. This helps in avoiding confusion among customers while simultaneously emphasizing the trademark’s uniqueness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In terms of non-traditional trademarks, India has a long way to go. With the introduction of new technology and developments in trademark recognition and association, going beyond the old approaches has become vital.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>Trademark Infringement Cases In the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nIn the Indian pharmaceutical industry, there have been a bunch of cases over the years involving pharmaceutical trademark infringement. One common feature of these several cases is that the risk of misunderstanding in cases involving drugs must be kept to a minimum, if not zero, to avoid any negative impact on public health. Some well-known trademark infringement cases in the Indian pharmaceutical industry are discussed below:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>Case 1: Cadila Healthcare Ltd. V. Cadila Pharmaceutical Ltd, 2001(5) SCC 73<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nCadila Healthcare Ltd. was granted a trademark for “FALCIGO” to market its medicine for cerebral malaria. After a year, Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. launched their drug “Falcitab” in the market. Cadila Healthcare Ltd. filed a complaint in the district court of Vadodara seeking a judgment prohibiting Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. from using the term “Falcitab. ” According to the appellants, both pharmaceuticals were used to treat the same condition, the labels were misleadingly similar, and both medicines were to be prescribed as a last resort. But according to the responders, the word ‘Falci’ is derived from the disease Falcipharum malaria and is used in the pharmaceutical sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Despite the fact that both pharmaceuticals can only be bought through a prescription, the Supreme Court concluded that this information was insufficient to prevent confusion. The Supreme Court declared that the disturbing similarity criteria must be amended in the case of pharmaceutical medications since misreading medicinal products can be fatal. As a result, the injunction was considered to be appropriate in this case. The Supreme Court of India also set the following factors for determining whether two pharmaceutical trademarks are deceptively similar:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n- The type of trademarks, such as a word, label, or composite mark.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- The degree to which the trademarks are similar.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- The kinds of goods or services for which they are used as trademarks.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- The similarity in the character, nature and performance of the rival\u2019s products.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- The type of buyer who is most likely to purchase or use products with the trademarks they need, based on their education and intellect, as well as the degree of caution they are likely to practice while buying or using the products.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- How things are purchased or orders are placed.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- And any other information that could help determine the degree of dissimilarity between the competing marks.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>Case 2: Mankind Pharma Limited V. Novakind BioSciences Private Limited<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nIn the case of Mankind Pharma Limited v. Novakind BioSciences Private Limited, the Honorable High Court of Delhi granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff (Mankind), prohibiting the defendant (Novakind) from, among other things, manufacturing and selling any pharmaceutical product with the suffix “KIND.” The plaintiff was the owner of the well-known trademark “MANKIND” and a number of other marks with the suffix “KIND,” while the defendant was using the mark “DEFZAKIND” for its pharmaceutical medicine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>Case 3: Cipla Limited vs. M.K. Pharmaceuticals MIPR<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nIn this case, the plaintiff sold “NORFLOXACIN” tablets in blister packaging that were oval in shape and orange in color, under the trademark “NORFLOX-400.” The defendant adopted the identical name, “NORFLOX-400.” However, the plaintiff did not sue the defendant for the name; rather, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant imitated the shape, color, and blister packaging of tablets, causing confusion. It is well understood that no color monopoly can exist as no one orders medicine based on its color, form, or packaging. The use of blister packaging is common, and pills are frequently round or oval in shape. As a result, there was no injunction issued.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>Case 4: Neon Laboratories Ltd. V. Medical Technologies Ltd. <\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nThe appellant filed a trademark registration application in 1992, and was granted the trademark “ROFOL” in 2001. However, the product was not released until 2004. Meanwhile, in 1998, the respondent introduced the drug “PROFOL.” Due to this, the respondent had an earlier user date, and the appellant had an earlier registration date. The case was in favor of the respondent as the respondent began producing and distributing, as well as earned substantial goodwill in that period. As a result, the trademark “ROFOL” was placed under injunction. The temporary injunction factors of balance of convenience and irreparable damage favored the respondent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>Why Choose Sagacious IP?<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSince trademarks are valuable in the pharmaceutical industry, it is necessary to do a comprehensive search before registering one to avoid duplication. The trademark search is required to avoid the infringement of a drug manufacturing formula, as each drug takes extensive study and has its own manufacturing formula. Whether you’re looking for a trademark in the USPTO database, the WIPO database, the EPO database, or a custom search, Sagacious IP’s experts can help you find what you’re looking for. Some of the reasons why Sagacious IP is the best option for you are as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n- Dedicated team of 20+ Trademark experts.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Trademark searches on global, cluster-based, and local level.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Find existing mark names that are Exact, Near Exact, or Similar Sounding in the same Classifications and Goods & Services.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Find all possible identical brand\/trademark names that could jeopardize the trademark rights.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Find out about any other well-known brand names or trademarks that are comparable.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Make a list of restricted trademarks so you can see if their brand name or trademark is included in the list.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Identify other products\/logos that appear to be similar to respective companies.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- The team has all of the tools necessary to offer you precise and dependable data.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Solutions that is both affordable and effective.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Excellent Results.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Flexible Delivery Schedules based on Customer Needs.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>Conclusion<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nAfter examining pharmaceutical Trademarks, it is clear that Trademarks are important in the pharmaceutical industry. To avoid trademark infringement, a systematic search should be done prior to registration to avoid similar naming and sound-alike pharmaceutical names, whether you’re searching the WIPO Trademark Database, the EPO Trademark Database, or conducting a custom search. A pharmaceutical trademark identifies a drug manufacturer’s success by prohibiting counterfeiting of its products\/processes. To summarize, Indian courts are adopting a stricter approach to adjudicating the probability of confusion in pharmaceutical trademarks due to the impact on human life. As a result, based on the opinions adopted by various courts, the following aspects should be considered when selecting a brand name for pharmaceutical products:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n- Avoid phrases or words that have become familiar in the business or are descriptive, as they may not function as source identifiers but rather as markers of ingredients or diseases.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Avoid suggestive words or terms.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Avoid the danger of infringement or passing off action, and conduct a check on the Trade Marks Registry website before registrations or applications.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Conduct a google search to see whether there are any similar pharmaceuticals on the market, and avoid names or taglines that are similar in appearance or sound, as well as trade dress or packaging that is comparable to your goods.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Avoid terms or marks that may be misleading because they contain inert or inactive components.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
Explore insights on the need for trademark in pharmaceutical industry with SagaciousElevate. Our expertise in utility patent drawings services<\/a>, trademark search services<\/a>, trademark monitoring services<\/a>, patentability search services<\/a> ensures you stay ahead with reliable IP solutions. Partner with us today to safeguard, manage, and maximize your intellectual assets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n– Priyanka Nimje (Trademark) and the Editorial Team<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>Having Queries? Contact Us Now!<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n