{"id":146,"date":"2024-12-05T08:21:15","date_gmt":"2024-12-05T08:21:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/litlegal.in\/blog\/?p=146"},"modified":"2024-12-05T08:21:16","modified_gmt":"2024-12-05T08:21:16","slug":"delhi-high-court-found-neovital-and-pepfix-similar-to-revital-and-pepfiz","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/litlegal.in\/blog\/index.php\/2024\/12\/05\/delhi-high-court-found-neovital-and-pepfix-similar-to-revital-and-pepfiz\/","title":{"rendered":"DELHI HIGH COURT FOUND NEOVITAL AND PEPFIX SIMILAR TO REVITAL AND PEPFIZ"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

A suit was filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants seeking permanent injunction restraining of trademarks, passing off, unfair competition, damages\/rendition of accounts of profits and delivery up, etc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Competing Trade Marks <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff\u2019s Trade Mark<\/strong><\/td>Defendant\u2019s Mark<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
PEPFIZ   Molecule: Papain, Fungal Diastase And Simethicone Use: Antacid Sold in the form: Effervescent tablets and sachets.   TM Registration under No. 555726 dt. 02.08.1991 in Class- 5. Renewed and subsisting.<\/td>PEPFIX   Molecule: Same   Use: same  Sold in the form: Capsules     No TM appl. filed   <\/td><\/tr>
REVITAL   Molecule: combination of vitamins and minerals   Use: Multivitamins for overall health.   Earliest TM registration under no. 447372 dt. 26.12.1985. Renewed and subsisting.<\/td>NEOVITAL Molecule: Same     Use: same     No TM appl. filed   <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Arguments qua the Plaintiff’s goods<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

It was contended that the Plaintiff coined and adopted the trade marks PEPFIZ and REVITAL in the years 1991 and 1985 respectively, and has been continuously, openly and extensively using them since the years 2004 and 1988, respectively. The said trade marks<\/a> had annual sales of approx. Rs. 22.6 million and Rs. 17,948.4 million, respectively in the FY 2023-24.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Arguments qua the deceptive marks<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

It was contended that the competing marks are deceptively similar, which is evident from the fact that the impugned mark PEPFIX is almost identical to the Plaintiff\u2019s trade mark PEPFIZ, with the \u2018Z\u2019 being replaced with \u2018X\u2019 in the impugned mark. It was further contended that the Defendant No. 1 has another product called PEPSOL with the same product packaging, to which the Plaintiff has no objection, and the Plaintiff only seeks relief against the mark PEPFIX.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Plaintiff further contended that the impugned mark NEOVITAL is phonetically, visually, and structurally similar to Plaintiff\u2019s registered and prior used trade mark REVITAL, which is causing confusion among consumers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was submitted that the adoption and use of the impugned marks amount to infringement of Plaintiff\u2019s registered trade marks, passing off and unfair competition, which is in turn causing confusion and deception amongst the public and loss to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant ought to be restrained<\/a> by way of an ex-parte ad interim<\/em> injunction.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court’s Direction<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Local Commission<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The Hon’ble Court appointed one Local commissioner to execute a local commission, directing to search and seize all the products bearing impugned marks PEPFIX and NEOVITAL, their packaing, promotion materials, etc at the Defendant’s premises. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Injunction<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Hon’ble Court restrained the Defendant<\/a> in dealing in goods under the impugned marks PEPFIX and NEOVITAL or any other extensions and \/ or any other trademarks containing the words PEPFIX and NEOVITAL, or any other mark that may be identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s registered trade marks PEPFIZ and REVITAL.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Counsel appearing for Plaintiff:<\/strong> Adv. Sachin Gupta, Adv. Rohit Pradhan, Adv. Ajay, Adv. Prashansa singh, Adv. Tanmay Sharma, Adv. Adarsh Agarwal, Adv. Yashveer Singh. <\/p>\n\n\n\n