Ex-Parte Injunction Granted Against NEXADOM for Trademark Infringement
Introduction
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Sun Pharmaceutical Medicare Ltd, restraining Alenvision Pharma Pvt. Ltd and another from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations under the impugned mark ‘NEXADOM‘, which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered trademark ‘NAXDOM‘.
Factual Background
The plaintiff, Sun Pharmaceutical Medicare Ltd, is a subsidiary of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited and owns the registered trademark ‘NAXDOM‘ for medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were infringing its trademark by manufacturing and marketing identical pharmaceutical preparations under the mark ‘NEXADOM‘.
Procedural Background
The Court considered the plaintiff’s application for an ex-parte ad-interim injunction and appointment of a Local Commissioner. The Court noted that the defendants’ application for registration of the impugned mark ‘NEXADOM‘ was rejected by the Trade Marks Registry on the ground of deceptive similarity with the plaintiff’s mark ‘NAXDOM‘.
Issues
The primary issue before the Court was whether to grant an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing the plaintiff’s trademark.
Contentions of the Parties
Plaintiff: The plaintiff argued that the defendants’ use of the impugned mark ‘NEXADOM‘ is deceptively similar to its registered trademark ‘NAXDOM‘ and is likely to cause confusion among the general public.
Defendants: No contentions were reported from the defendants.
Reasoning and Analysis
The bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that the plaintiff has a prima facie case in its favor, and the balance of convenience lies in its favor. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd, which held that in cases of drugs, the test of deceptive similarity has to be applied strictly to avoid confusion.
Implications
This judgment highlights the Court’s proactive approach to protecting trademark rights and preventing infringement in the pharmaceutical industry.
In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Sachin Gupta, Mr. Rohit Pradhan, Mr. Adarsh Agarwal, Ms. Prashansa Singh, Mr. Atal Anand, Ms. Mahima and Mr. Ajay, Advocates.