11 May, 2018
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court restrains Wockhardt from using the mark ‘CHYMTRAL FORTE’
In the matter of Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (‘Torrent’) v. Wockhardt Ltd. & Anr.8 (‘Wockhardt’), by way of order dated November 17, 2017, the Division Bench of the Bombay HC set aside the order of the Single Judge dated March 15, 2017 following an appeal filed by Torrent and granted an interim injunction restraining Wockhardt.
Torrent filed a suit inter alia for infringement and passing-off against Wockhardt based on their registrations for the marks CHYMORAL and CHYMORAL FORTE with rights dating back to the year 1962, and Wockhardt’s subsequent adoption, use and registration of the mark CHYMTRAL FORTE (‘Impugned Mark’). The key arguments relied upon by Wockhardt were that:
(i) both the rival marks were derived from the active ingredient TRYPSIN – CHYMOTRYPSIN and the prefixes CHYM and CHYMO are publici juris;
(ii) the Impugned Mark was not deceptively similar to CHYMORAL FORTE;
(iii) Torrent failed to prove any misrepresentation by Wockhardt; and
(iv) there has been significant delay as well as acquiescence as the Impugned Mark had been registered and allegedly coexisted in the market with Torrent’s product CHYMORAL FORTE for a period of eight years.
The Single Judge dismissed Torrent’s application for an interlocutory injunction against Wockhardt and held that the three tests in the classical trinity of passing off, i.e. reputation, misrepresentation and likelihood of damage, had not been satisfied, and that Torrent (and its predecessors) were also held to have acquiesced in the use of the Impugned Mark by Wockhardt as it failed to oppose or object to the use and registration for a considerable period of time.
The Division Bench allowed the appeal, inter alia, on the basis that Torrent had satisfied the tests for establishing passing-off. The Division Bench held that in order to prove ‘misrepresentation’, the plaintiff does not have to prove any mala fide intention and the act of putting the goods in the market with a deceptively similar trademark, is enough to constitute misrepresentation. The Division Bench also held that an incorrect test had been applied to determine ‘reputation’ and that association of the product with its source or the maker is not required to prove reputation.
Further, the Division Bench observed that the tests laid down in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. should be adopted while determining possibility of confusion between medicinal products and accordingly, Wockhardt ought to be restrained from continuing the use of the same. On the issue of delay and acquiescence, the Division Bench opined that there was no proof of a positive act attributable to Torrent and mere inaction or delay must not be confused with acquiescence.
AZB represented Torrent before the Single Judge as well as the above appeal before the Division Bench. Wockhardt has now challenged this order of the Division Bench by way of a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which is currently pending.
Trade variations of footwear / sandals should not be given exclusive monopoly: Delhi High Court denies interim protection for Crocs registered designs
In the matter of Crocs Inc. USA (‘Crocs’) v. Liberty Shoes Limited & Ors. and other footwear manufacturers in India (‘Defendants’), the Delhi High Court (‘Delhi HC’) rejected Crocs’ applications for interim injunctions for piracy of copyright in their registered design.
Crocs had obtained design registrations under the Designs Act, 2000 for its perforated and non-perforated clog-type slippers/shoes in May of 2004. Crocs brought various infringement suits against the Defendants who were manufacturing and selling sandals with clog-type designs largely similar to Croc registered design.
The Delhi HC was of the opinion that the registered designs ought not to have been registered in the first place and the registrations were liable to be cancelled as these designs were published and disclosed prior to their registration dates. This finding was arrived at on the basis of internet archival pages dated 2002 (which disclosed similar designs) from the website of Holey shoes.
Evidence was also gathered from Crocs’ own website prior to 2004 which also revealed largely similar designs. On the issue of novelty and originality, the Court was of the view that the designs registered by Crocs were neither original nor novel as they were not significantly distinguishable from products already existing in the market and were mere ‘trade variants’ of a sandal, which did not deserve any exclusivity or monopoly.
8 Commercial Appeal No. 125 of 2017 in Notice of Motion of (L) 35 of 2017 in Commercial Suit (L) 32 of 2017.
For further information, please contact:
Zia Mody, Partner, AZB & Partners
zia.mody@azbpartners.com
