{"id":6,"date":"2023-11-25T03:18:34","date_gmt":"2023-11-25T03:18:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/litlegal.in\/blog\/?p=6"},"modified":"2023-11-25T03:18:35","modified_gmt":"2023-11-25T03:18:35","slug":"delhi-high-court-restrains-abbzorb-in-trademark-infringement-suit-by-sun-pharmas-abzorb","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/litlegal.in\/blog\/index.php\/2023\/11\/25\/delhi-high-court-restrains-abbzorb-in-trademark-infringement-suit-by-sun-pharmas-abzorb\/","title":{"rendered":"Delhi High Court restrains ABBZORB in trademark infringement suit by Sun Pharma’s ABZORB"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Brief Facts:<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Recently, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court decided on a trade mark infringement suit filed by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd against Protrition Products LLP. The plaintiff, claimed infringement of their registered trade mark “ABZORB” against the defendants’ use of “ABBZORB” and “ABBZORB NUTRITION” in the market.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plaintiff’s Contentions:<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Plaintiff contended that they are the registered proprietors of the trade mark “ABZORB,” registered for pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations. They alleged that the defendants’ use of “ABBZORB” and “ABBZORB NUTRITION” for their products, notably whey protein, infringed upon their registered trade mark. The plaintiff argued that the defendants’ marks were phonetically identical and structurally similar, only differentiated by an extra letter “B,” which could easily cause confusion among consumers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Defendant’s Contentions:<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Defendant challenged the distinctiveness of the plaintiff’s mark, citing it as a variant of a common English word. They argued that the nature of their products was distinct from the plaintiff’s and catered to different customer segments, asserting that there was no likelihood of confusion between the two products due to significant price differences and distinct consumer bases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court’s Analysis and Conclusion:<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Court conducted a thorough analysis focusing on the aspects of deceptive similarity and likelihood of confusion. It was established that while the defendants’ mark was not identical, it was deceptively similar<\/span><\/strong> to the plaintiff’s mark, especially considering the phonetic similarity. The Court disregarded the defendants’ argument on distinct visual appearance and price difference, emphasizing the mark-to-mark comparison for assessing infringement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court found that the defendants, despite being aware of the plaintiff’s existing trade mark, proceeded to use a deceptively similar mark for related goods, indicating mala fide intent. Consequently, the Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favour of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, restraining Protrition Products LLP from using the impugned marks or any deceptively similar trade mark pending disposal of the suit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Legal Implications:<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

This decision reiterates the importance of phonetic similarity in assessing trade mark infringement and shows the responsibility of businesses to avoid using marks that could potentially cause consumer confusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Counsels:<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

For the Plaintiff: <\/strong>Mr. Sachin Gupta, Mr. Ajay Kumar, Mr. Rohit Pradhan, Mr. Manan Mondal, Ms. Gaurangi Sharma, Ms. Prashansa Singh, Ms. Himadri<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For the Defendant:<\/strong> Mr. Sanjay Ghose, Sr. Adv. Mr. Akshay Goel, Mr. Paras Arora, Mr. Vinay Parashar and Ms. Namrita Tiwari, Advs. for D-1 Mr. Pranav Sapna, Adv. for D-4<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Read Judgement:<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n