Protecting Consumer Clarity in Pharmaceutical Markets

Case Note & Summary

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.

Ad-Interim Relief Sought

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

Plaintiff's Business and Trade Mark

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

Trade Mark Registration

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

Goodwill and Reputation

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

Defendant’s Trade Mark Application

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

Legal Proceedings in Srinagar Court

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

Argument for Similarity and Confusion

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

Anti-Dissection Rule

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

Public Health Considerations

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

Defendant's Counterarguments

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

Court's Consideration of Deceptive Similarity

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

Deceptive Similarity in Medicinal Products

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

Court's Conclusion

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

Defendant's Defenses

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

Additional Defenses and Rejections

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

Court Order

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