The case revolves around Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. filing a lawsuit against Alteus Biogenics Pvt. Ltd. for trademark infringement and passing off. Glenmark holds a registered trademark for its heart medication under the name "SACU-V." Glenmark claims that Alteus's use of the mark "SACV" for similar pharmaceutical products is deceptively similar, leading to potential confusion and infringing on their trademark. The Bombay High Court examines key legal principles, including deceptive similarity, public health concerns, and the role of house marks in distinguishing brands.

Glenmark seeks an injunction against Alteus to stop using the "SACV" mark, alleging it is nearly identical to their registered trademark "SACU-V." Alteus argues the use of its house mark "ALTEUS" before "SACV" makes the product distinguishable and that there is no likelihood of confusion. The court delves into trademark law principles, especially in the pharmaceutical context, where stricter standards apply due to potential health risks from confusion between medicinal products.

1. Background of the Case:

• Plaintiff: Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
• Defendant: Alteus Biogenics Pvt. Ltd.
• Glenmark registered the trademark "SACU-V" in 2021 for a combination drug used in treating heart failure (Sacubitril and Valsartan).
• Alteus Biogenics released a product under the name "SACV," which Glenmark claims is deceptively similar.

2. Claims by Glenmark:

• Glenmark asserts that the mark "SACV" is phonetically and visually similar to "SACU-V."
• Glenmark launched its product in January 2023 and has been using the trademark extensively.
• Alteus’s use of the mark infringes on their trademark rights and could confuse consumers, especially considering the similarity of the products’ compositions.
• Glenmark provided documentation to demonstrate the goodwill and reputation of its product.

3. Defense by Alteus:

• Alteus claims the "SACV" mark was inspired by a different pharmaceutical product and that the use of their house mark "ALTEUS" before "SACV" sufficiently distinguishes the two products.
• Alteus argues that since both products have the same chemical composition, there is no risk of confusion affecting public health.

4. Key Legal Issues:

• Deceptive Similarity: Whether the marks "SACU-V" and "SACV" are deceptively similar, especially in the pharmaceutical industry where stricter standards apply.
• House Marks: The role of using a house mark (ALTEUS) to distinguish the defendant's product.
• Public Health Considerations: The court discusses the potential risk to public health if consumers confuse the two medications due to the similarity of the marks.

5. Court’s Analysis and Precedents:

• The court refers to previous cases like Cadila Health Care Ltd. vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Union of India, emphasizing the need for stricter standards in cases involving pharmaceuticals.
• The court examines the role of house marks and finds that adding a house mark does not necessarily remove the likelihood of confusion, particularly when the mark in question (SACV) appears prominently on the packaging.

6. Dishonesty and Confusion:

• The court notes dishonesty in the adoption of the "SACV" mark by Alteus, as it was initially linked to an HIV drug, yet the product being sold shares the same composition as Glenmark's heart medication.
• The court highlights that even minor changes in a trademark may not avoid confusion, especially when the products are pharmaceuticals.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Trade Marks Act, 1999: Focus on provisions related to trademark infringement, deceptive similarity, and registration of marks.
• Section 29(1) and (2): Relating to infringement of registered trademarks.
• Section 31: The evidentiary value of a trademark registration.
• Relevant Case Law: Cadila Health Care Ltd. vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001), which discusses the principles of deceptive similarity, particularly in medicinal products.

Ratio Decidendi:

• The court holds that stricter standards must be applied in cases involving pharmaceutical trademarks to avoid consumer confusion, given the potential health risks.
• Merely adding a house mark does not eliminate the possibility of confusion when the primary marks are deceptively similar.
• In the pharmaceutical sector, where the same product compositions can be life-saving or dangerous, the potential for confusion between similar marks carries significant consequences, warranting stringent protections for registered trademarks.

Subjects:

• Trademark Infringement, Deceptive Similarity, Pharmaceutical Products, Intellectual Property Rights, Public Health, House Marks, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Alteus Biogenics