Given the pharmaceutical industry's impact on public health and safety, Indian courts can be tough when dealing with drug trademark infringement. In assessing whether the similarity of the trademark would adversely affect the general public, The court took a strict approach.

Therefore, Courts consider the smallest details when determining whether infringement has occurred. Seemingly similar medical products can endanger the lives of consumers, And put public health and safety at risk. In the latest Intas Pharmaceuticals Private Limited v Intra Life Private Limited And the other parties, The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction against the accused, They are prohibited from using the plaintiff's registered trademark "Looz" .

The case is against 3 It was brought by the defendant, One of the defendants settled the matter amicably with the plaintiff. The defendant acknowledges Plaintiff's vested and exclusive rights to the trademark and its variants. The court approved the terms of the settlement, And adjudicate, Since the plaintiff had reached a settlement with the first defendant at the early stage of the case, The plaintiff has the right to demand a refund of the litigation costs paid 50%.

however, other 2 The accused was neither present nor represented, Although lawyers had briefly represented them in court the day before, Said the defendants would apply to set aside the existing temporary injunction granted in their absence, And request a further adjournment. Specific control 2 Sum control 3 The defendants' case proceeded in their absence.

The court held that, Despite the fact that the court has provided notice to appear, But the defendants still chose to avoid the proceedings. In addition, The defendant has not presented any material or justification for the infringing trademark used on its products. These defendants used it on their medications "Loozout" mark, The mark is a trademark of the plaintiff "Looz" Deceptive similarity. defendant, Their assignee, The agents and all others who worked for them were permanently banned from manufacturing, sales, Offer for sale, Advertise and promote the use of logos "Loozout" Or pair mark "Looz" Products with additional prefixes or suffixes. Defendant is further prohibited from manufacturing or selling any product under any other trademark that is identical or deceptively similar to Plaintiff's registered trademark.

In addition, The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff 20 Lakh rupees (2500 dollar) cost. The interesting thing is that, According to India "1999 Annual trademark act" The first 103 article, Trademark infringers may be fined no less than 6 A month but not more 3 Years of imprisonment and no less 5 But not more than Rs 20 A fine of Rs. The court may impose a penalty for special reasons which must be stated in the judgment 6 Less than a month in prison and 5 A fine of less than Rs.

In the above case, The court requires an absent defendant to pay a fee equivalent to the maximum fine that can be imposed by the Crown court. The court did not say that the plaintiff had paid the corresponding costs, Not to mention a detailed summary. The court seems to be guided by the maximum criminal penalty in awarding costs.

The court clearly wants the order to reflect the seriousness of the infringement of pharmaceutical trademarks and the possible impact on the health and safety of consumers. Return to plaintiff 50%Is designed to encourage litigants to settle out of court.

(Compiled from www. lexorbis. com)

Reprinted from China Intellectual Property Network  translation: Rason group　proofread: Wang Dan

disclaimer: This website reprint articles are from the Internet, Does not represent the views of this website or confirm the authenticity of its content. If the source is mislabeled or the copyright of the article is involved, Please contact this website, This website will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.