|
Zydus Wellness Products, a leading consumer wellness company in the country, has received a favourable injunction order from the Delhi High Court on its petition against Cipla Health Ltd related to the energy drink product containing glucose.
Zydus Wellness approached the Court alleging that Cipla’s marks Gluco-C and Gluco-D for its energy drink, is deceptively similar to its registered trademarks Glucon-C and Glucon-D and the trade dress adopted by Cipla infringes the copyright of the trade dress of Zydus’ product.
Zydus claims that its Glucon-D Tangy Orange is a market leader in the energy drink product range. Zydus alleged that Cipla was marketing its product under the mark Prolyte and has now started using Gluco C++ and Gluco D++ alongside the mark Prolyte, so that the brand name now reads Prolyte Gluco C++ and Prolyte Gluco D++, which it alleges, is with the intent of creating confusion in the mind of the customer into believing an association with Zydus’ products.
Cipla, on the other hand, argued among other things, that the registrations granted to Zydus’ marks Glucon-D and Glucon-C are invalid and the marks are liable to be removed from the registered trademarks. The Counsel appearing for the company said that these marks are descriptive of the kind, quality and intended purpose of the products in respect of which they had been registered.
In an order on July 3, 2023, Justice C Hari Shankar hearing both the sides, concluded that Zydus Wellness Products would be entitled to an injunction against the use, by Cipla, of the mark Prolyte Gluco-C++ or Prolyte Gluco-D++, as they infringe the former’s registered mark Glucon-C and Glucon-D respectively.
Pending disposal of the suit, Cipla as well as all others acting on their behalf shall stand restrained from using the marks Gluco-C or Gluco-D either by themselves or as part of the marks Prolyte Gluco-C++ or Prolyte Gluco-D++ or as part of any other mark which would be deceptively similar to Zydus’ registered marks, in respect of any product which is identical or allied to the products in respect of which Zydus uses the registered trademarks Glucon-C and Glucon-D respectively.
The Judge refused to accept the submission of Cipla that the marks Glucon-C and Glucon-D were not entitled to registration under the Trade Marks Act.
However the Court observed that the allegation of Zydus Wellness that Cipla is passing off the product using the deceptive similarity, stating that the allegation prima facie cannot sustain. The trade dress of Cipla’s product cannot be treated as deceptively similar to that of Zydus’ product.
“The differences in the trade dresses and appearance of the packs of the plaintiff’s (Zydus Wellness) Glucon-D and the defendant’s (Cipla Health) Gluco-C, or Gluco-D, are sufficient to negative, at a prima facie stage at least, any possibility of the defendants being able to pass of their product as that of the plaintiff,” said the Judge. The fact that, on the face of the product of the defendants, the identity Cipla Health is also depicted is an additional factor in that regard, added the order.
|