Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff, Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited, a pharmaceutical company, filed a suit for trademark infringement and passing off against the defendant, Indkus Biotech (P) Ltd., alleging that the defendant's use of the trademark 'RABITAL' for pharmaceutical and nutritional products was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'REVITAL'. The plaintiff had been using 'REVITAL' since 1988 for a nutritional supplement (ginseng with multivitamins and minerals) and had obtained registration under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The plaintiff claimed that 'REVITAL' was a coined, invented word and had become well-known. The defendant adopted 'RABITAL' for similar goods, which the plaintiff argued was phonetically and structurally similar, likely to cause confusion among consumers. The plaintiff sought an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark. The court, after hearing arguments, found that the marks were deceptively similar, noting that both were three-syllable words starting with 'R' and ending with 'AL', with the middle syllable 'VI' and 'BI' being similar. The court held that the defendant's adoption was not honest and that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case of infringement and passing off. The balance of convenience was in favor of the plaintiff, and irreparable loss would be caused if the injunction was not granted. Accordingly, the court allowed the notice of motion and restrained the defendant from using the trademark 'RABITAL' or any other deceptively similar mark until the disposal of the suit.
Headnote
A) Trademark Law - Infringement and Passing Off - Deceptive Similarity - Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, Sections 28, 29, 105 - Plaintiff's registered trademark 'REVITAL' (since 1988) for nutritional supplements and defendant's mark 'RABITAL' for similar goods - Court held that the marks are phonetically and structurally similar, and the defendant's adoption was not honest, leading to likelihood of confusion and deception - Interim injunction granted restraining defendant from using 'RABITAL' or any deceptively similar mark (Paras 1-10). B) Trademark Law - Interim Injunction - Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Loss - Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Plaintiff established prima facie case of infringement and passing off - Balance of convenience in favor of plaintiff as continued use would cause irreparable harm to plaintiff's goodwill and reputation - Defendant's use restrained pending disposal of suit (Paras 8-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the defendant's use of the trademark 'RABITAL' infringes the plaintiff's registered trademark 'REVITAL' and amounts to passing off, warranting an interim injunction.
Final Decision
The court allowed the notice of motion and granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant, its servants, agents, and assigns from using the trademark 'RABITAL' or any other deceptively similar mark in relation to their goods, pending the disposal of the suit.
Law Points
- Trademark infringement
- passing off
- deceptive similarity
- interim injunction
- balance of convenience
- irreparable loss
- phonetic similarity
- structural similarity
- coined word
- well-known trademark
