Allowed

M/s. Addsun Health Care v. Bion Therapeutics India Private Limited

Telangana HC21 Mar 2023CMA/550/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against an interim injunction restraining the use of trademark 'ADDAXON'. The High Court found the marks not phonetically or visually similar and that 'AXON' is a generic suffix. The appeal was allowed and the injunction was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The order of the trial court granting temporary injunction is set aside. The appeal is allowed.

M/s. Addsun Health Care Vs Bion Therapeutics India… — Intellectual Property | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s8 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, IHE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO^NAIDU

¶6

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 550 OF²⁰²¹

¶7

Appeal Under Order 43 Rule 1^(r) of C.P.C against^{the Judgment and} Decree, Dated 03-09-2021 made in 1.A.No.520 of^{2021 in O.S. 147 of 2021 on} the file of the Court of the XXV Addl. Chief iudge,^{City Civil Court,at Hyderabad.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s. Addsun Health Care, #3-97, Sripuram^{Colony, Nadergul, Saroornagar} Mandal, Near Delhi Public School, Rangareddy,^{Hyderabad - 501510, Rep. by} Nukala V.V. Sarma^(Partner)

¶10

Nukala V.V. Sarma,^(Partner) 3-97, Sripuram^{Colony, Nadergul, Saroornagar} Mandal, Near Delhi Public School, Rangareddy,^{Hyderabad- 501 510}

¶11

Syed Baji,^(Partner) 3-97, Sripuram^{Colony,Nadergul,} -Sarogr!?Sa! ftland.ql, N6ar Deihi Public School, Rangareddy, Hyderabad^{- 50'1510Fi/o. D.No. 16-} 623, Old Post Office Lane, Piduguralla^{Guntur District,Andhra Pradesh -} 522413

¶12

Nukala Lakshmi Lalita Prasanna,^(Partner) 3-97,^{Sripuram Colony,Nadergul,} Saroornagar Mandal, Near Delhi^{Public School, Rangareddy, Hyderabad-} 501510

¶13

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT^{No.1, 2, 5, & 6}

¶14

AND

¶15

Bion Therapeutics lndia Private^{Limited, 303-304, 5-19-191,Chakrapani} Estate, Hil[ Fort Road,^{Saifabad, Hyderabad-500 004, Telangan,} Represented by its Managing Director/Authorised^Signatory

¶16

P. Satyanarayana Murthy, 3-97,^{Sripuram Colony,} \adgrgyl,.-S.qroornagar Mandai,.Nearbelhi Publii School,^{Rangareddy, Hyderabad- 50'l 5'10}

¶17

Chilakapati Vishnu^{priya, 3-97, Sripuram Colony,Nadergul,Saroornagar} Mandal, Near Delhi Public School,^{Rangareddy, Hyderabad- 5015]-0-l1o} H.No. 4-220, Near Veterinary Hospital,^{Mangalgiri'AndhraPradesh- 522503}

¶18

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF

¶19

,lffi

¶20

IA NO: 20F 421

¶21

Petition unc lr Section 151 CPC praying that n the or.cumstances stated in the affidalit f le in support of the petition, the High Coul may be pleased to suspend the orcler dl03logl2(t21 passed in lA No.520/2Cr2 1 in^()S No.14712021 on the file of XXVI Jrll..Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hydr:r;'ba,1

¶22

Counsel for the A; pellants :SRl ANUMALA NAVEEN KUM,\Fl

¶23

Counsel for the R( spondent No.1 : M.VANAJAKSHI

¶24

The Court made tt e following: JUDGMENT

¶25

]

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU CML MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.55O OF 2O2L

¶27

JUDGMENT:

¶28

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been fiied under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) C.P.C by the appellants who are respondent Nos. 1,2,5 and 6 in I.A.No.520 of 2O2l and defcndant Nos. 1.2,5 and 6 in O.S.No.147 of 2021 on t]ne file of XXV Additional Chief Judgc, City' Civil Court, Hyderabad. The respondent No. t herein is plaintiff in the above said suit and the respondent/ plaintiff liled the suit against the appellants herein and other defendants with a prayer to grant perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants etc. , from infringing the trade mark "MIiAXON/SUNLTTE/AMTLTFT/ADGABA/R NrNE", to restrain the defendants from passing off the trademark, from infringing the copy right/artistic work of the logo and also for an order to direct the defendants to surrender the deceptively similar to that of plaintiff's registered trademark label and submit an account with prof,rt details.

-a*-

(MA , .5s) oJ 2021

Thc rc:p<,u le nt/plainlilf has also^{lilcd arr ill.'rl')crutol-'} applicatio,r ',ide I.A.No.52O ol 2021^{unoert-)rcrcr XXXIX} Rule I l'ro )^(.P.C. lor temporar-i^{injul( 1l()l'} ')^{('srri ,ll)} the resp trrdents/defendants frotn usltls r:hc

¶34

responlerrt, plarntiff's trademark^{"MEAXON'cirh< ras a} u,ord or as^. . ogo or an]' trademark identlr:al^{,r- .lt'ce} lltir^el-t' simiiar to hat of tl-re respondent,^{suc[^ :rs '.'f)l)AXON"} trade nrark c,[ petitioner/ defendant and^{to 1 ( sjt ral n theln} from .rsin5 letter-heads, exhibits etc,.^{(ror 1i rinrllg the} traderrar< '\4ltAXON" or "ADDAXON".^{'l'l-L< alrpcllants} trerein opp< sr:d the said petition.^{They have frl:cl a detailed} countcr. Tt e trial Court having^{considered tl-e at'::rments} of botir par .ics and other record,^{allowedtlte il-'tt:rlr;cutor]} application^vide Order, dated^{O3-09-2()2 trr dgranted} temporarv n. unction as follows:

¶35

"lhe re tition is allowed u'tth costs gratrti;lpt 1(rmpol-arlr injunction r<:straining the^{respondent (irppel.tl-rrs herein)} from rrsing the petitioner's trademark^{"M EAX()tl" cither as} a u,or.k o as a logo or any^{Trader-.-rat'1..irler tical or} decep ivi:ly srmilar to that of the^{pe il iorrcr's as}

cMA No.55o oJ 2O21

"ADDAXON" trade mark of the respottdettt, and from^using letter heads, exhibits, sale bills or any other^materiai containing the Trade Mark "MEAXON" or^"ADDAXON"as their Trademark/trading st-vle or corporate name^{or by} using any other trademark u,hich is in any^{way visually,} phonetically or deceptiveh similar to the^petitioner's Trademark "MEAXON" in print, electronic or on^the internet on any website.

¶40

Being aggrieved by the above^{said order,the} appellants i.e., respondent Nos.1,2,5^{and 6/defendant} Nos. 1,2,5 and 6 have filed the^{present appeal on the} following grounds:

¶41

The order of the trial Court which^{is underchallenge} in the present appeal is^{pervert, perincuriam,} unsustainable in law and^{on facts, it is completely contra} to principles of law more specihcally^{the Trade Marks Act,} 1999. The appellants have^{claimed that a merereading of} the impugned order shows that^{there has beenno} application of mind by the trial Court-^{The trademarkof}

¶42

ts.. -1^*'

¶43

¶44

(it .\ \o.! 50 ol 2o21

¶45

¶46

the espr r-rler-rt/plarntiff mentior-re d in ir^i.et krcutor-r applrc rti,rn i; r:ntirclt dtfferent from tl-re tra,:lrr:ta] h of rite :rppcll urt s tamely "ADDAXON". Tlte t e is sr11t.ril'rc:rrnt diflcrcrrcr: )e tu'een thc trademarks ol tlre applli:rnts ancl resporrdent The trial Court has wrorrgly rn , iolatior I ol statLltonr r:'ovisiorr and judicial prece<k:rL.:;, gr:rltccl temporarv irlturction in favour of the rr:spo:rdr nt.^-fhc appcllirnts rzrvc clainted that mere pirna fcLctrt :iattsfact ion is not cno rljh and it cannot be arrived nt,)r,tlv on thc: grour-rrl th tt the respondent/ plaintili trad,rnrark is z1 register-ecl rzrdemark or that it has becr-r Llsut g lhc s.ri(l tradenrark ;ir-rce 2O00 onwards. The comltositior Ls of clrugs are generic ir nature and the respondent,/ plair r riff <loes not hold irn.1. )ropriel.ary right on the said c;r tltositiorrs "AXON" ir; z Sleneric word and it means "rrerve li et " u hich 15a Ior-rg, le:nder projection of nerve ccll, or :rerrron, in ,-ertcbratos that t-ypically conducts ek:ctricrl irnpulses knorvn as e ltion potentials away from thc ner,,e: cell bod.v There irre .r x,ul- 331 trademarks with the sr.rflis "AI(ON'' in the reqisle of the trademark and out o, r"hi,:1-r 1,12

CMA No.55O oJ 2O21

trademarks comprising the rvord "AXON' are registered Therefore, according to the appellants it is customary to use the word "AXON" as suffix ir-i this particular trade for compositions which are tvpicaltl used to treat nerve disorders and no proprietary right can be granted to^the word "AXON". The appellants have claimed that adoption of such descriptive word "AXON" cannot be determined^as IS infringement and the trademark of the respondent entirely different with the trade mark of the^appellants herein. The trial Court by granting temporary^injunction caused irreparable loss and injury to^the appellants^herein. There is no general similarity between the^trademarks "MEAXON" and "ADDAXON". In the absence of^deceptive similarity, interim injunction has to be refused, but^the trial Court failed to recognize the dissimilarity^{and allowed} the interim application.

¶51

The appellants while quoting a^{judgmentbetween} Apex Laboratories Limited as Zuuentus^{Health Care} Limited wherein the trademarks^{"ZINCOVIT" and}

¶52

'.) 14.411 )'lo,5 5() oJ 2O21

¶53

'ZIl'jCO) IA" are involvcd. the appellants har r clarmccl that tl-re Hrr3h^()ourt of Madras considered the rr,trC "ZINCI' asa corrrmon r,,ord used in the trade and is a 1,r,rbLr: juris and further' ol-rs;idered that the tu,o u,ords 'llllrlC IVI't-', ancl "ZII\rCON tl," are phonetically dissLmila- arrd r.isual impre ssi rr of the said name are also ditfe^{-e -rt} and hcr-rce are hzrr< l-r like1y to cause confusion in 1:re minds of comrr]()n- consllmer and held that th<: intr:r-im injur-rction righth- r, rcated by the learned Judge and c:isrtissecl the aPP'la1

¶54

Tl-rr zLppellants have also relied on anrrtlrer judgment betv.een Schering Corporation a.nd others us Gateuell Life Sci:n.ces India Pvt. Ltd., about the ,:rrand names TtrMO(;EI and TtrMODAR/TEMODAL, rvh:r_-^,,TEMO,, is clipped Ltrbrsyi21i.. of "TEMOZOLOMIDIt'' and suffix "Gtr'|" ;s lifferent with suffixes "DAL/DAR" arrd held that "the prod, tct is not of the shelf product uhich. jt a person can go and p rchase and also held that likelihood oJ deception

-_€.2 I

I-

CMA No.55O^{oJ 2O21}

being uitluaLlA^{nil and stated that ptainttff is not entitled for} interim injuruction.^"

¶61

The appellants^{have claimedthat in the presentcase} ' trademark of^{the appellants is "ADDAXON", whereastrade} mark of the^{respondent is "MEAXON"'The impugnedorder} suffers bad^{precedent and againstthe spirt of Trademark} Act

¶62

The appellants^{have further contended thatthe} respondent/ plaintiff^{filed the main suit forperpetual} injunction to^{restrainthe appellants herein from infringing} the trademark'MEAXON/SUNLITE/AMILIF*I/ADGABA/R NINE" and to^{restrain the appellants herein from passing} off the said^{trademark and for restrainingthe appellants} form using the^{artistic work never used the word} "ADDAXON"^{in the plaint prayer' But' white filingthe} interlocutory^{application,the respondent/plaintiff who is} petitioner in the^{said interlocutory application mentioned} the word^{"ADDAXON'which is trademark of the appellants'} herein. Therefore,^{there is a clear deviation in the prayer of}

¶63

aL.A \o.:50 of 2O21^</sup>

¶64

the rr sp'rn^{lcr-rLTplairrtiffu,llen comparec u'idL-lrc pra\cl's} in thr tr.ar r suit^{an(l inte rlocutor-vapplicatlc1l Thereiorc.} ..he the iri)^)c llzrnts have contend('d^rhat respo;rck:r-r /pl,rintiff^{ought not to have devlz1t cl lrom the} pravc^' rn^t t ,: inain sult. The^{appellants furtl t:l coutended} that it is; s:11k:d^{principle of lau' that n(' interirn relief car-t} be grantcd^[:c1 oncl^{the scope of relief sought tv tl'rt: plarrrtilf} rn tl'rc rnai I sr.tit.^{'lhr: respondent/ plaintilfdeliLrert teh'rvith} a r.ieri tr> I alt the^{business of appellants ht:re in attd u'ith a} rr-rala{ide^ir rtention added^{theappellantr;tr ademark} "ADD.,\XO I" in the interim application^{and c,btz.ined the} impu gnt:d I t-d,:r.

¶65

7 . 'lhe appellants further contende d tL at clefendar-rt No.2 rs ar rx employee of defendant^{No.2. D:fi-'nclantNo.3} i.s an i:x- trilr,.ner of l"t defendant.^{Tl-rey[-Li Lvc left the} responder t after completing all the^{exit form11:ty and after} handine, rycr all thc^property of the resPonck:t-tt.^'1'herefore, the airp,:il rrts sought for setting aside^{the 1m} ll^{lgned order.}

cMA No.55O oJ 2O21

B. As could be seen from the record, it seems the

¶70

respondent/ plaintiff while iiling the above referred interlocutory application, filed the afiidavit of its Managing Director, namely Amitav Rout with the following averments:

¶71

The re spondent/ plaintiff lsa private limited

¶72

company. It used to deal with the manufacturing ol goods relating to pharmaceuticals, pharmaceutical drugs, medicinal and pharmaceutical preparation such as, "MtrAxON/SUNLITE/AMILIFT/ADGABA/R NINE" and running the business in the name and style of "Dion Therapeutic India Private Limited" since 2005.^The respondent/plaintiff expanded their trade and achieved reputation, good-will in the Pharmaceutical Industry. They have got thousands of satished customers for the^good qua-lity of goods manufactured by the respondent. The respondent/ plaintiff has ciaimed that the trademark "MEAXON/SUNLITE/AMILIFT/ADGABA/R NINE"^is recognized by the customers as symbol of trust,^efficiency and quality. The respondent is a^{registered proprietor of}

¶73

! I

¶74

1i)

¶75

( lL.' No.55O of 2021

¶76

the said t'a,lemitr-k. Thc trademarks ltat'c [](ren^Llsed exLer rsr'('l . oltcnh and c:ontilluouslV crrL tlte^goods, station:.r) , labels, broachcrs etc. The Iespo^r(. ent/plzurttiff pron- ot ecl z'nrl m arl<ed their quillity 8,ro<[s o 1^t he above refered I^'2, dcmarl<.^'l'hercfore, these tr-a(lotr.r,rk s became inextrical- 1, entu'incd rvith the trade in the idenlity ol the responcler 1/plaintill in the eyes of cons,-rmers n lndia. The responclcr t h,rs spcnt httgc amounts to^pr-orrotc the trade 'lher:fore thc tradernarks are associirted only with the responcler t /plaintiff. Thev have got exc'usi,(^r oplr right on the r- ri,eln rl^la bel

¶77

The respondcnt further stated thal tht: arppellants' industrv h as been formed by the ex-empl,ye,:s of the resp,rntle..t/plaintilt. Thev started man ufzrct Lrlinll identical goods ' ,'i th de<:cptivel1, similar tra<le nark. The resp()n(le Lt /plaintiii discovered that the zrppellarrts herein rnith a m rlafrde intention of riding on Lhe llotdrvill of Lhe resp()n(le Lt have been manufacturing deceplively similar producr's r.,,ithin the similar geographical :narket. The

¶78

¶79

CMA No.550 oj 2021

¶80

respondent/plaintiff received innumerable complaints from their clients and users in August, 2O2O and came to knour that the appellants herein are marketrng their goods under the trademark "ADDAXON" which is phonetically, visually, vocallv and structuraily similar to the registered trademark of the respondent/ plaintiff.

¶81

The affidavit further reads that appellants' industry was formulated by some of the ex-employees of the respondent/ plaintilf who have worked against the interest of the respondent. These appellants after learning the technical know how of how the respondent/plaintiff running the business, floated a rival pharmaceutical business in association with the former employees of respondent/ plaintiff, started rqanufacturing goods and in order to set up a riva,l business to enrich illegally and to usurp the respondent's clients, they have been using ttre trademark of the respondent/ plaintiff.

¶82

As per the alfidavit filed in support of the petition, it was specifically contended that the appellants herein have

¶83

i.2

¶84

CMA Itc'. i50 of 2O21

¶85

been se [1ir g their proclucts to the same clie^1l.s ol^thc respondcnt. llre inLcntion of thc appcllanls l erc:inⁱⁿ adoptinE, a sr nilar traden-rarl< bv^just replzLcir-rg^{'h,{E' lvith} "ADD" and c 'eating deceptivcly similar produc- :al cd as "ADDAXON" )r' "Mtr,AXON" is violation of the^legistered intellectr-ral p 'operty rights ol the respondent/ pl ri rtilf and it is on:y to gain illega111. b]' en cashing the^{re,pur-ation,} goodrvill ard rarket of the respondent/^{plaintiff. lhe:efore,} the resoortcl rn t sought for a temporaq inj l Lction to restrain the ippellants herein from using^{"ADI)1XC)N"as} their trade m rrk.

¶86

The erp rellants herein have opposed the^p,:tition.A counter alfid Lvit has been Iiled by denying all tlle^material averments ol the affidavit referred above. The^appr:llants herein have :laimed that the respondent's lirrl^do,lsnot have anv pa e^-rted drug. The appellants have^ct, en^using llcensed rna ruf:rcturers know' how u'hich is^{e ntirely} differenl fror r the respondenl's firm Knorv-FIo,,r'. Tlle^ex- employees o :he respondent resigned from t.-tt, firm^by

¶87

¶88

CMA No,55O ol2021

¶89

completing all the exit formalities. They started 1"t appellalt's firm in March, 2018 in vieu, of their experience in the liled of Pharma Industry. The appellarts have claimed that their brand name is entirely different from the brand name of the respondent/ plaintiff. There is significant difference betrr.,ee n the two trademarks

¶90

The appellants further stated that they have adopted trademark "ADDAXON" taking "ADD" from their company's name Addsun Health Care. "AXON" is a nerve fiber of neuron basic cell of nerves system. The trademark of the appellants has been coined by using those two words, but both the brand names are completely different. There are no such similarities as alleged by the respondent/plaintiff. Therefore, the contention of the respondent that it will cause loss to the reputation and goodwill to the respondent/plaintiff is meaningless. Thereby, sought for dismissal oI the petit ion

¶91

During enquir-v respondent/^plaintiffhas marked Exs.Pl to P15. Having considered the affidavit of the

¶92

!9a

¶93

¶94

('t'rA \o.55O oJ 2O21

¶95

resfond€ rr /ltlair-rtrll and counter- affid:rvir file cl b.',, the allp,'llarn s |lcreirl :-rir([ also thc doclrmeitts; pr cdu:e cl b_r the resl:,orrd€ tl , the^(lourt ltclou, allorve l Lhr: pc _ition and passed rl e impugncd order

¶96

1 5. I lei rr] l;oth piir[ies

¶97

Nor the point for consideration is

¶98

ItVh zlh.er the tnal Court failed to under.;t':.nct. the claim o.f aopeLlant and (nmmitted turot.L(, lr! ordenng terr corory injunction in fauour of t.espo,1c,en:/ plctintifp 11's ', tuhether the said order is liattLe to lt:t set a.si.de?

¶99

PO] NT:

¶100

The zLppellants herein are defenc:ants rr Cr.S.No.147 of 2021 Lrrd respondents in the interlocut,)ry. application filed b1, t rr: respondent/ plaintiff for ternporar-r, injunction. The appe lzr-nts ha',,e filed this appeal, assiLilinrl the order of the t.rre,l⁽ lourt whereunder it grated a t(lmpor.rry injunction restr-ainir g the appellants herein frorl rrsirtq t re t.rademark "ADI)OX( tl[" on the grouncl that it is r;ir.ni1ar to the trad(rmar i of respondent namelv^{,,N/lltpX()N".} The

cMA No.55O of 2021

re spondent/ plaintiff has claimed before the trial Court that they have been using the trademark "MEAXON" since a longtime and the appellants herein having quit the respondent's company lormed a diflerent company and started using "ADDOXON" to infringe the trademark and passing off their product. The appellants have Iiled the appeal on varlous grounds, including the ground with regard to dissimilar marks between "MEAXON" and the 'ADDAXON'. Admittedly, the trademark of respondent/ plaintiff is "MEAXON", whereas the trademark under which the appellants started sale of their product is "ADDAXON". The appellants have claimed that'AXON" is a generic word, which means nerve fiber which is a long slender projection of a nerve cell that typically conducts electrical impulses known as action potential away from the nerve cell body. The above referred two trademarks except the Iast four letters are not similar with each other. As rightly contented by the appellants, their trademark 'ADDAXON" is different from the^word "MEAXON'. The logo that has been used by the appellants herein is also quite

¶105

l1l

¶106

a l,'A ').55O o[ 2021

¶107

dilferent t<. lhe loqo of thr: rcspor-rdcr-ri/pi;t t:rili TItr: Lrial Clourt ir-L para No.29 ol tht. impr-rgned or-cllt- tl-r tuglt held thal ti-re v,)rd registered its "MEAXON zr nd r .'orl trsccl by the appe lzLnts herein as "ADDAXON' sourrrls differentlv and thc syllables are also drfferent ir-r tv ,., riords. 'l'hc labelin;1 . ; also rlilferent and also hcld tlrat t hc shapcs of the^,:un'e s in n,hich the products are kclrL or more ot- lcss, the samr content of thc label are silrll€, ,)ut the\ are differentl Cepicted. Thc trial Court 1'r-rrthe r. obser.".ed in the order ra'ith regard to the nature of the gc orls, the Court held th 1t the three products o\ er utich the rcsponrle rt/plaintiff claiming relief zrr<r Jr1: arreaceuticai products. rvhereas the products of th,-, :rppr- rlarrts herein are ,alsc rtLarmaceutical products and Lhe tomF,osition of the prrd rr:ts is the sarne. The pro lucls solC bv the appe'llant ; herein in the name ol "ADDr\XON' are mezrnt to be taken es vitamin supplement and prtc ucls of the responrle L1 /plaintiff are also meant to '>e tzrl<i'n :Ls vitamin supplerne tr.. Horvever, the Court held tha thr class of purchast: s who are likely to buy the goods ir c udes literate

¶108

¶109

cMA No.55O oJ 2O21

¶110

and illiterate customers. [t is a lact that the product can be sold under prescription across the counter of the Chemist. The Court below also observcd in its order that to the naked ye when purchased by an ordinary customer, the products of the respondent/ plaintiff and the products of the appellant are compared, they may not appear to be similar. Therefore, except the nature of the goods, the trademarks of the appellants are different with the trademark of the respondent. The appellants have filed list of (331) trademarks r.r,ith the sulfix "AXON" in the register of trademarks, out of which (142) trademarks comprising the word "AXON" are registered. As could be seen from the list frled along with appeal, it is quite clear that apart from the appellants herein, there are number of other traders using the word "AXON" as suffix or prefix to their product artd the salne was registered before the concerned authorities

¶111

I8. The other ground on which the appellants sought for setting aside the order is the deviation in the prayer portion

¶112

¶113

C' IA )'o.5Sa of 2021

¶114

o1' tlr(' lr lrrrlocutorv applicattolt \vhcn c( )ti-lt)i rt-(,(l \.ith thc rlla l [)- t,\ or of tl-re surit As pcr the ltlaint tllel.o rs no rneirti(,n of l-he \vord "ADDAXON" ir: tlte Platnt l)ravcr, s herczrs irr the interlocutory application, 1^ c r csltondent plainti11' r()ught for an injunctron to re:ilr:rjn rhe Lrsc of uor'1 'AI I,AXON"

¶115

I 9. 1'hr r espondents has claimed that th,r.,. rr.c registerccl prol)ri('1(.,., of sc'/eral trad<:marks inclrrdinq L tc traclcmark

¶116

"MEA::a) 'l' and it rvas their case that tl-re app,:lli r-rts hereirl hav,: r anulactured goods under. llt,: trademarl<

¶117

"ADDAX( )|,1" and it is phonetically, r,rslLal /. v,)cally and structuri 1ly similar to the registerec trarle:mr rk of the rcspondr er-. In fact, the . above ,.efcrre r [ [raclemark "ADDAX( )l{" is not phonetically and v,rcalll .;imilar lo the lraderLar < o1' the respondent. The logo ol tl- r: altpellzr nts is also diffe^-ent from the logo of respondent. l.he respondent canlrot r:aim that the customers r.r,h o u,arrr ti) bu1, the proctucl ,f respondent may out of conrusiolr cr_r.chase the procluct , f appellants, because the sale of yl.rtlur;ts ol both

CMA No.55O of 2O21

I I

parties will be on prescription by registered medical practitioner across the counter. The appellant has got right to manufacture pharmaceutical products as per the license obtained by them, but they are not enritled to manufacture goods, deceptively similar to the goods of respondent herein. As could be seen from the photographs of both products, it is very clear that they are not appearing to be similar. "AXON" is a generic word, commonly used in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products, but ,,ADDAXON,, is definitely phonetica.lly not similar to the word "MEAXON".

¶123

In a judgment betn,een Subwag Ip LLC as InJinitg Food^q.nd. Otherst, the High Court at.Delhi while dealing with the case about "SUBWAY" and ,,SUBERB held that the defendant's trademark "SUBERB" cannot infringe either the plaintiff's trademark "SUBWAY" or any other device marks of plaintiff. In the judgment the High Court at Delhi referred various other judgments.

¶124

| 2023 SCC Ontine Delhi I5O

¶125

..*_,

¶126

¶127

:lll A Nn.55O of 2O2l

¶128

2',. In I j-rdgmenr betu,een South lndict )]euerages

¶129

Priuate Li.mited us General Mills Mar,cc,tirr.g Inc. a Bcnr:h o' )elhi High Court made the fol Lor. ins. lll:;cn,:r tror-l

¶130

'l'lrr: jrrdqmcnt of a Division Bcnch oi th^j < Court in Sou I'i lndra Bcverages h,t Ltd^, .^C31y 1d_Nl-llls r!^iil (( tinq Inc.13 has, however, sl-l[).lcct-c(l th1] anri rlrss :r:tion ruie 1o a caveat, where part ol a m:rrl< ('r)n titutes its dominant featurc anrl is disrinc tivc in n:lT' r,r, or has acquired secondary nrezrnir rg I)\ dint oi lr,n 1 rtsirgc. Thr: relevant passages ir<>rn lltc d:cision IIIi]\ be ;'cproduced thus:

¶131

"'''h, Rule ol Ant i-Disscction"

¶132

'l':rir ;'ulc mandates Lhal the Couris whii.;t rlealirrg ri itl c.rses of trademark infringernenr in,,olvrng crrrr tosite marks, must consider the corlpc,:.ilr: marl<s irr I rcir cntirer.v as an indivisible u hole ::r Lhcr tlt:r:r irrrr cirting or dissecting them int,) its ,-- >rn ronc;rt p rr- ; arrd make comparison n,ith t..ic c,t-rr:sptndirrg p,rr' ; o[ :rrrival mark to deterrnine th,; 1l<,:lihoocl oI corr Lr;ion. Thr: raison d'tre underscortrg th: sairl prrr :ipkr is that the commercial imprr ssior L of rr corr tosite rrademark on an ordirrary 1t-os tectivt: b Lt',, r is created by the mark as a \,h()1,3 ir td not trr.. its :c,mponenl. parts [Fruit of thc locnr, Ir-rc. v. ()rrt urtrrl 14; Ar-ltozone, Inc. v. Tandy Corpot-,rtionl.

¶133

'I' rr: lcentilication of 'Dominant Mark

¶134

Tro rgh it bears no reiteration that r.r'hiie rL r nar k is to b,.: 'onsidered in entircty, yet it is ltcrmiss blc to il('(⁽ r<[ rnort: or less importance or dc,nrirr:rnce to zr l)^lr' c -rlirr porIion or clcmenL of a :nzr i-[: ir: ct.se s ol COrr tositc rnarks. Thus, a particurar t:l:rrrcrt of :r COlI rositc mark rvhich cnjoys greate. pr-oalirrcnce vis. avi other constituent clemellts, may bc^..r: r.mr d as rr drlrl rn ant mark'-

¶135

¶136

CMA No.S5O oJ 2O21

¶137

At this juncture it would bc apposite to refer to a recent decision oI this Court reported as Stiefel Laborataries v Alanta Pharma Ltd. Thc Courr whilst expounding upon the principle of "an ti-dissec tion" cited with approval rhe vier,r,,s ol thc eminent :ruthor on the subject compriscd in his authoritative trcarLiseMcCar[hy on Tradcmarks and Unlair Competition. It was o bserved:

¶138

The anti dissection rule which is under these circumstances required to be applied in India is really based upon nature o[ customer. I t has been rrgh tl1, set out in McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition about the said rule particularl]r in Para 23. 15 which is reproduced hereunder:

¶139

15 Comparing

¶140

Marks: Differences v. Similarities

¶141

(1) The Anti-Dissection Rule

¶142

(a) Compare composites as a Whole : Conflicting composite marks are to be compared by looking at them as a whole, rather than breaking the marks up into their component parts for comparison. This is the^"anti dissection" rule. The rationale for the rule is that the commercial impression ol a composite trademark on an ordinary prospective buyer is created by the mark as a whole, not by its component parts. However, it is not a violation of the antidissection rule to view the component parts of conflicting composite marks as a preliminary step on the way to an ultimate determination of probable customer reaction to the conflicting composites as a whole. Thus, conflicting marks must be compared in their entireties. A mark should not be dissected or split up into its component parts and each part then compared with corresponding parts of the conflicting mark to determine the likelihood of confusion. It is the impression that the mark as a whole creates on the average reasonably prudcnt buyer and no[ the parts thereof, that is importanL. ns the Supreme Court observed: "The commercial impression of a trademark is derived from it as a whole, not from its elements separated and considered in detail. For this

¶143

¶144

{ ti\ N S5O of2O21

¶145

r€:Ls )ri iL shoulrl be^('onsidered in rs entiletr. Thc :]1.rii ri rsscr:tion Ir.rle is based upon 1 co[ ]t on sens( olrsr r-.:rliorr ol r-ustomcr l>r:har,,ior r : i-rc \ pic.rl s[r,, p::r c]ot's rrot rctain all of the inrlit,rdLr tl clt::rils,rl 11⁽ⁱ rirosi{. rnirrk ilt his or hcr mind. b't( ,. ait,s onh' :rr o. c;-al[, scltera] impression r:rca:t rl Itr tht: oorr l( )siLe as it u,holc. lt is the o,cnlll^,r rlpt cssion C|l^. r'C b\ 1I-r(, rnzlrk lrom the or ji|an s].rr,p1ter-s crLri )ll ottsen,:rtion in the ntarketg,lare i'lar *ill or rvill not lcird ro a likclihood ol confLLSi()t-1 . not thc inrp c;s1<trr ,-rc.rtt:d lroll a mcticulotts ,;c,rtl arison as c>r1', .r.,sc'cl in carcluliv rvcighecl analyrls in l:3al Itriefs. Ir. I i13ar.ion o,,,cr- the allcged similaritl.of n arJls. thc: o,r'r: rr u,i1l cmphasize the similarities and rlie rrlleged ir Ir rrler rvill cmphasizc the dilferences. l'h r point is I Lrat I l-re Lr,l o ntarks sl'rould rrot be exzrn n,:cl u ith a rr il: or;cope to find thit <lifferences, f'tr this s r rot lht: \,a'; I re zrvcrage purchzrser views t]re rna r l. s. l'o th(l :rr.:cr r!le buvcr, the points of similaritl 1rc rrore inl) )r:allt thal minor points of diJferen,:,: A court sho rkl not engage in technical S mrlzis ti;s in a r-r .lr-re n lL to find sontc minor diffr:renc,:s b,:tween r:orr icting ntarks.

¶146

Hov r:r'er,^,,r,here Lherc are both sirnil rrLtic; and r'1 lli :t nr:es in the marks, there n rust )(. u eigl.re d :rili1 r:il, onc another to see which predomiliil:e.

¶147

T lt: ri tionalc o[ the anti-dissection rrle is l.rLserl upon thrs iLssumption:" An average purchaser do,ls not rctil n all the details ol a mark, but^.-atl-rer t te rental rr:r1r c;ston o[ rhc mark creates in its rottlitr,. It has b,-'cr lreid to be a violation of the arrti-dis sc ction rule to^li- c -rs upon thc^"prominenl" feature o1' I 'na:k ancl d,lc ic likel1. confusion solcly up,)n t.L.lt frrature, r g,nr ri^-rg all other elements of the mark. Si l:larly, it is irel: oper t() lind Lhat onc porlion of rr com:c sit,: mark has r o trar.lemark significance, leerditrg tc a direct ('orT rlrrisor-r trcr-s,ccn onJy that which re:nair: s.''

cMA No.55O of 2O21

The apprehension of respondents that their cllstomers may be misled by the use of appellants, trademark ADDAXON is unreasonable, because no one read rhe name by splitting it into ADD and AXON, but naturally read it as ADDAXON which is definitely different from the trademark of respondent.

¶152

In a judgment between F.Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. Ltd. Vs GeolJreg Mq.nners & Co. (p) Ltd reportedz, rvhile dealing with rhe marks "PROTOVIT" and^,,DROpOVIT,, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no infringement was that the suffix "Vit" was a common abbreviation for vitamin. preparations, and that, discounting^,,Vit,,, the remainder first part of the competing marks were dissimilar. In another judgment between Astrq.zeneca UK Ltd. Vs Orchid Chemicq.ls & Pharmq.ceuticals Ltd reportedt a Division Bench of Delhi High Court while dealing with the trademarks "MERONEM" and "MEROMER, used for for pharmaceutical preparations containing^{,,Meropenem,,}

¶153

2 1969 2 SCC 716

¶154

3 2007 SCC Online Delhi 237

¶155

f ;r;.i

¶156

.l{

¶157

C,lA ;'lo.55O oJ 2021

¶158

forurd 11,tt tltr: sul-llx^*Mero" when rsecl ir.r sur:lt l)rcl)alatl^{oLts, \ ils} rin^atcron-/ms for NIerolt,:r.en and rras, thcrefr>r r , Cescrrp,.tvc ancL public juris and Ire.lcl rl-iat^,,Nent', alld "nto " are nrlt I)holtetlcalllV or otherwisr: si.nilar.

¶159

24 ln :rnothcr .ludgntcnt betrr,,een Sort lr e Healtl-rcarc Privatr: I it--rrted r. s Dabur Ir-rdia Limited rvh lc dr:arling u.itl,r tI-tc clait ts; of appellaltts that the re spondr..nt has becl,l Lrsing "ll \llLIR IIABY StJPtrR PANTS" and I is leceptivelv simrlar t > their trademark "SUptrR CtJTtrZ' held that the traderla ks of Dabur, ri,hen taken as a rv tr,le carlnot be ternrec[ rs dece]lti.elr. srmilar to^..SOOTFLI,, registered traclerr.r k "SUt,EI? CU'IESTtrRS',, "SUPEI: CLtTEZ,' and "SU PER ](JTtr'S'

¶160

2r I:-r h,-- present casc, the font and logo oi tht: appellant IC not r in-rilar to 1.he font and logo of the re,,.;pondent and thel cirn )c,t be t ermed as similar to th e 1ra I <, mzLrks of thc respondr tr

CMA No.55O of 2021

I t

Therefore, it is quite clear from the above that trvo dilferent trademarl<s used by. the appellants and respondenL though containing "AXON" as a suffix are not phonetically and literally identical, thereby the respondent/ plaintilf cannot claim infringement of this trademark. In the light of the list of trademarks appended b1. the appellants herein, apart from the appellants, company, there are more than 3O0 other companies using the same u,ord "AXON" as a suffix to their trademark. As such, the respondent cannot apprehend that the use of AXON by the appellant will cause confusion in the mind of customers. Therefore, the respondent/plaintiff cannot claim that the appellants have infringed their trademarks and it amounts to passing of the product. Even though the Court beiow found that the trademarks in question are not phonetically identical, granted an injunction on the ground that the appellants herein displayed the product of the respondent/ plaintiff in the website. But, the sarne was disputed by the appellants and this aspecr is a subject to be decided only after the parties adduced their evidence.

¶165

¶166

)n: A N t.55O of 2O21

¶167

-t

¶168

Therelirrr, rhe frrci;ngs oi l)rc (burt bclo,.r tltrt the (,lsc of 'ADl)AX(^{rl</sup> " as il lril(lclnitrli itv thc lrltocll.ulLti amounts to infnr'rgr:n ent and irasslng of Lhc prodlrct ol l.esl)ondent is incorrr:ct en<l thc tn.junctron restraining atlrcllanls from using 'AI^t[)AXON' ,s liabll to be scr aside}

¶169

27 . In the result, thr: Civil Miscellane )r s App(_'al IS allos,ecl

¶170

As r st:qur:1. pcndtnq Misr:ellaneous /\I_plications. if any. sl^ al s;tand closed

¶171

SD/.C.V.MAT LIKARJUNA VARMA Jol\5=-GlsrRAR //rRUE coPY/ t

¶172

IJECTION OFFICER

¶173

To, 1. The.XXV lidr l. Chief 1udge, City Civil Court, at Hyderzrbi:d (With records if any). 2. One CC b I Rl Anumala Naveen Kumar Advocate [OF Ur]l 3. One CC to S ll IU.VANAJAKSH| Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Cop :s. BSK

4a/*N

)

I I I

I t I I

HIGH COURl

DATED:21 10i12023