In the recent case of Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd vs Fast Cure Pharma, the plaintiff applied to the Delhi High Court for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, marketing, supplying, selling and offering for sale medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations under the trademark RAZOFAST or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s mark RAZO. The plaintiff holds valid and subsisting trademark registrations for ‘RAZO’ and ‘RAZO-D’ marks under registration numbers 1320974, 2336815 and 2370917 in class 5.
The plaintiff had come to know about the use of the defendant’s mark RAZOFAST for manufacturing, marketing, and selling of rabeprazole tablets towards the second week of August 2021. The plaintiff had contended that the defendant was attempting to capitalize on the plaintiff’s goodwill by creating an association with the plaintiff’s product with the addition of the suffix ‘Fast’, which implies faster relief. It was further alleged that the overall trade dress adopted by the defendant would enhance the possibility of confusion between the marks of the defendant and the plaintiff.
Despite service of the summons and issuance of interlocutory injunction, the defendant never appeared before the court to contest the case. The court considered the plaintiff’s assertions as admitted. It was observed by the court that the test of triple identity stands satisfied in the present case. The plaintiff’s mark ‘RAZO’, which was in use since 2002 was an inventive and arbitrary mark in reference to the Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient rabeprazole and was wholly contained in the defendant’s mark.
The products of the defendant and the plaintiff were the same, i.e., rabeprazole. They were also available through the same sources and catering to the same consumer base. The court further noted that the use of RAZO as a prefix indicates the intention of the defendant to ride on the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff and pass off its product as that of the plaintiff.
The court, finally noted that a clear case of infringement and passing off was made by the plaintiff and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendant as well as all others acting on their behalf, permanently, from manufacturing, marketing, supplying, selling and offering for sale medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations under the trademark RAZOFAST or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s mark RAZO amounting to infringement and passing off. The court further allowed costs for the plaintiff and directed the matter to be presented before a Taxation Officer to ascertain the amount of costs.
