Search Results for "Netmicin"

Trending :

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensat...
Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Disput...
Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Sui...
Supreme Court Enhances Child Maintenance and Grants Interim Medical Maintenance ...
Supreme Court Upholds Refusal to Eschew Proof Affidavit in Probate Proceedings. ...

Search Results for "Netmicin"

6 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 6 result(s)

High Court

Bombay High Court Division Bench Hears Appeal Against Single Judge's Refusal of Interim Injunction in 'Netromycin' v. 'Netmicin' Trade Mark Dispute. The appeal challenges the finding that the marks are not deceptively similar and that surrounding circumstances negate confusion, raising questions about the correct test for deceptive similarity in pharmaceutical trademarks.

8 Oct 2010

The dispute arose from a civil suit filed by Schering Corporation and Fulfort (India) Limited (appellants) against United Biotech (P) Ltd. and Oscar R...

High Court

Bombay High Court Grants Temporary Injunction in Trademark Infringement Case — 'EVANOVA' vs 'ECONOVA' for Pharmaceutical Products. Marks Held Deceptively Similar Under Section 29 of Trade Marks Act, 1999.

21 Jan 2014

The Plaintiff, Charak Pharma Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit against Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. seeking a perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant fr...

High Court

Bombay High Court Grants Interim Injunction in Favor of Plaintiff in Trademark Infringement and Passing Off Suit. Registered Trademark 'SACU-V' for Heart Failure Drug Protected Against Deceptively Similar Mark 'SACV' for Same Composition Pharmaceutical Product.

3 Sep 2024

The Plaintiff, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., is engaged in manufacturing and sale of pharmaceutical preparations. It adopted the trademark 'SACU-V' i...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Trademark Infringement Case — No Deceptive Similarity Between STIMULIV and STIMULET for Different Pharmaceutical Products. The court held that the mark 'STIMULET' used for an allopathic breast cancer drug does not infringe the registered mark 'STIMULIV' used for Ayurvedic liver medicines due to differences in nature, trade channels, and customers under Section 29(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

20 Jan 2023

The case involves a trademark infringement and passing off dispute between two pharmaceutical companies. The appellant, Corona Remedies Private Limite...

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Plaintiff's Trademark Infringement Suit for ANTITHYROX and THYROX Against Defendant's LETHYROX. No deceptive similarity found as prefix 'LE' distinguishes marks and THYROX is descriptive of thyroid treatment.

29 May 2013

The Plaintiff, Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited, filed a suit against Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and another for infringement of their registered trad...

High Court

Bombay High Court Hears Appeal Against Vacation of Interim Injunction in 'RACIRAFT' vs 'ESIRAFT' Trademark Case. The Court Examines Whether the Impugned Mark 'ESIRAFT' is Deceptively Similar to the Registered Mark 'RACIRAFT' for Pharmaceutical Products, Applying the Anti-Dissection Rule and Principles of Phonetic and Visual Similarity.

8 Apr 2026

The case involved a commercial appeal filed by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. against an order of the Single Judge vacating an ad-interim injuncti...

Full Name * Username * Mobile Number * Email Address * State/UT * City * Password * Confirm Password * Referral Code (Optional)