Search Results for "Netromycin"

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 "Netromycin"

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 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 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 Appeal Against Denial of Interim Injunction in Trade Mark Passing Off Dispute, Holding No Prima Facie Case or Balance of Convenience. Phonetic Similarity of 'CHYMTRAL FORTE' to 'CHYMORAL FORTE' Insufficient for Interim Relief Where Drugs are Schedule H Prescription Medicines and Public Interest Favors Affordable Pricing.

17 Nov 2017

The dispute arose from Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited's claim that Wockhardt Limited and East African (India) Remedies Pvt. Ltd. were passing off the...

High Court

Bombay High Court Grants Permanent Injunction in Trademark Infringement Suit — Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Swisskem Healthcare & Anr. — 'PANDERM' and 'POLYDERM+' Held Deceptively Similar. The Court held that the marks are structurally and phonetically similar, and the Defendant's use is likely to cause confusion, especially in medicinal products where a high degree of care is expected.

2 Jul 2019

The Plaintiff, Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd., filed a suit for trademark infringement and passing off against the Defendants, Swisskem Healthcare and ...

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