IP Case Law › Trade Marks › Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Relevant Acts and provisions
Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958
Provisions considered: Sections 27(2) and 28 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, concerning passing off and infringement.
Brief facts
Both parties traced their origin to a common group that had split, and each was permitted to use the word Cadila in its corporate name. In 1996 the appellant launched a medicine under one mark for cerebral malaria, and in 1997 the respondent launched a different drug under a similar mark for the same ailment.
Free to read once you are signed in
Read the rest of this case note
The findings, the decision and the principle the court settled on are below. Create a free account to keep reading. No payment, and nothing to cancel.
Already have an account? Sign in
We use your details to give you access and to contact you about your enquiry. See our privacy policy.
Cases cited
- Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd., AIR 1960 SC 142
Authorities referred to in the decision. Please verify each citation in the judgment itself.
Keywords
Deceptive Similarity Passing Off Pharmaceutical Trademark Phonetic Similarity Public Health
Read the judgment
More Trade Marks judgments
Trade Marks
Acqua Minerals Limited v. Pramod Borse & Anr.
Registration of a domain name identical or deceptively similar to another's well-known trade mark, by a person having no legitimate connection with that mark and who seeks to profit from its transfer, amounts to bad faith cybersqu…
Bad Faith AdoptionCybersquattingDomain NamesPassing OffTrade MarksADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks
Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 proscribes registration only where a mark is devoid of distinctive character, that is, incapable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of another; it does not…
Absolute Grounds for RefusalArbitrary MarkDistinctivenessNon-speaking OrderTrade MarksAmazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Direct Selling Guidelines, 2016, being advisory executive instructions without the force of law, cannot bind e-commerce platforms. Once goods bearing a registered trade mark have been put on the market with the proprietor's co…
E-commerceExhaustion Of RightsIntermediary LiabilityOnline Infringement