The case involves a dispute over trademark infringement between the plaintiff's "ZITA-MET" and the defendant's "XIGAMET" in the pharmaceutical sector. The court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using "XIGAMET," citing deceptive similarity and potential consumer confusion.

1. Ad-Interim Relief Sought

   • Plaintiff seeks temporary relief to prevent defendant's use of "XIGAMET," alleging trademark infringement against "ZITA-MET."

2. Plaintiff's Business and Trade Mark

   • Plaintiff is in pharmaceuticals, markets "ZITA-MET" (Sitagliptin/Teneligliptin + Metformin) since 2013, registered in Class 5.

3. Trade Mark Registration

   • Evidence of extensive use and reputation since 2013, supported by sales invoices and certificates.

4. Goodwill and Reputation

   • Claimed significant goodwill for "ZITA-MET" based on market presence and customer recognition.

5. Defendant’s Trade Mark Application

   • Plaintiff opposed defendant's "XIGAMET" application in 2020; later found evidence of sales under the mark in 2023.

6. Legal Proceedings in Srinagar Court

   • Initial injunction against plaintiff in Srinagar, not continued; plaintiff filed current suit in October 2023.

7. Argument for Similarity and Confusion

   • Phonetically, visually similar marks could confuse consumers despite different active ingredients.

8. Anti-Dissection Rule

   • Marks should be considered in entirety, not dissected into parts.

9. Public Health Considerations

   • Emphasis on stricter scrutiny in pharmaceuticals to avoid potential health risks due to confusion.

10. Defendant's Counterarguments

    • Jurisdictional issues, dissimilarity claims ("XIGAMET" vs. "ZITA-MET"), ongoing litigation in Srinagar.

11. Court's Consideration of Deceptive Similarity

    • Supreme Court guidelines on deceptive similarity applied; factors include mark nature, resemblance, and consumer behavior.

12. Deceptive Similarity in Medicinal Products

    • Stricter standards due to public health implications; comparison of marks as a whole.

13. Court's Conclusion

    • Found "XIGAMET" deceptively similar to "ZITA-MET," granted ad-interim relief based on consumer confusion risk.

14. Defendant's Defenses

    • Rejected claims of abuse of process and lack of jurisdiction; frivolous adoption explanation for "XIGAMET."

15. Additional Defenses and Rejections

    • Dismissed arguments on third-party products, packaging dissimilarity, and prescription versus over-the-counter sales.

16. Court Order

    • Ad-interim relief granted, injunction against "XIGAMET"; no costs ordered.