This article delves into a recent legal case concerning alleged passing off, wherein the defendant copied the entirety of the plaintiff's trademark for medicinal eye drops. The case raises important legal questions regarding deceptive similarity, prior use, and the duty of due diligence in trademark disputes.

Background of the Case:
The dispute revolves around the plaintiff's trademark "CAFTA," used for medicinal eye drops containing the compound "ALCAFTADINE." The defendant, on the other hand, introduced a competing product under the mark "CAFTADAY," also containing the same compound. The plaintiff, claiming prior use of the mark "CAFTA" since 2019, alleged passing off by the defendant, whose earliest trademark application dates to 2021 on a 'proposed to be used' basis.

The plaintiff argued that the defendant failed to conduct due diligence and neglected to search the Trade Marks Registry before adopting the mark "CAFTADAY." Additionally, the plaintiff contended that the defendant is estopped from claiming lack of distinctiveness in the term "CAFTA" since they themselves applied for registration of the mark "CAFTADAY."

Court's Observations:
The Hon'ble Court scrutinized the issue of misrepresentation in the case and noted that the defendant's mark "CAFTADAY" completely subsumed the plaintiff's mark "CAFTA." The court emphasized the deceptive similarity between the two marks, highlighting that "CAFTADAY" essentially consists of "CAFTA" and "DAY" as two separate words. This similarity could lead an average consumer of imperfect recollection to confusion between the two marks, thereby supporting the plaintiff's claim of passing off.

Court's Decision:
Based on its observations, the Hon'ble Court restrained the defendants from using the mark "CAFTADAY." The court recognized the deceptive nature of the defendant's mark, which effectively incorporated the entirety of the plaintiff's mark "CAFTA." By issuing the injunction, the court sought to prevent further confusion in the marketplace and protect the plaintiff's rights as the prior user of the mark.

Legal Analysis:
Trademark law aims to protect consumers from confusion and deception while safeguarding the goodwill and reputation associated with established marks. In this case, the defendant's adoption of entire of the plaintiff's trademark "CAFTA" constitutes clear infringement and passing off. By copying the entirety of the plaintiff's mark, the defendant sought to capitalize on the goodwill and reputation built by the plaintiff, thereby causing confusion among consumers.

Conclusion:
The case serves as a reminder of the legal consequences of copying entire trademarks and the need for diligence in trademark adoption. By restraining the defendant from using the mark "CAFTADAY," the court reaffirmed its commitment to upholding the integrity of trademark rights and preventing unfair competition in the marketplace.

Case Title: Sunpharma Laboratories Limited Vs Narender Kumar and ors
Order Date: 21.03.2024
Case No. CS(COMM) 424/2021
Neutral Citation:2024: DHC: 2934
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Anish Dayal, H.J.

Disclaimer:
This article is meant for informational purposes only and should not be construed as substitute for legal advice as Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation perceived and expressed herein are are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue of law involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539