New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has permanently stayed the use of the mark "Vigoura" by a homeopathic medicine manufacturer to sell its medicine for sexual disorders.
The court's decision came on a trademark infringement suit filed by Pfizer Products Inc., which sells a well-recognized erectile dysfunction allopathic drug under the "Viagra" trademark.
Saying that there was a "strong possibility" of confusion between the two names due to similarity and overlap in commercial operations, Justice Sanjeev Narula directed Renovation Exports Pvt Ltd "not to use Vigoura or any other mark which is a trademark of Pfizer." Similar" is confusingly similar. Trademark "Viagra".
It also ruled that the plaintiff would be entitled to nominal damages of Rs lakh to be recovered jointly and severally from the defendant institution."The defendants or any person acting on their behalf are enjoined from manufacturing, selling or offering for sale, marketing, advertising or in any other way using any mark similar to 'VIGOURA' or the plaintiff's trademark 'VIAGRA' Any of their goods will be deemed to be infringing or relinquishing the plaintiff's registered mark 'Viagra'," the court said in its order passed on Wednesday.
"Plaintiff's trademark 'Viagra' is highly recognized by its name in the field of erectile dysfunction drugs. They have invested heavily in the manufacturing of Bran and due to its success, 'Viagra' has gained national and global fame, which As a result, the defendants subsequently acquired a right to award damages in favor of the plaintiff on the basis of the mark being imposed with knowledge of the plaintiff's existence,” the court said.It found that there was material that successfully proved Pfizer's position as the owner of the "Viagra" trademark and that the company's successful registration in India proved its exclusive ownership over the brand here.
The court held that "Vigoura" and "Viagra" demonstrated a high degree of sound similarity that could mislead consumers into believing that Vigoura was either a variant of "Viagra" or endorsed by the manufacturers.
Additionally, the overall length of the words and their similar letter arrangement could cause confusion at a glance, especially in environments where consumers make quick decisions, such as online searches or pharmacy purchases, the judge said.
“This initial confusion may occur despite the consumer's overall awareness or knowledge of the differences between allopathic and homeopathic treatments. In such scenarios, while the consumer may understand the difference between the types of treatments (allopathic vs. homeopathic), the similarity in disease may be "And the name or trademark may create an association between the two products based on perceived endorsements or verba accounts or recommendations," he said."Given the similarity between the two trademarks and the overlap in scope of use and commercial operations, as stated above, there is a strong likelihood of confusion among the general public. Thus, the Court answers this issue in favor of the plaintiff .and against the defendants, holding that the defendants' mark 'VIGOURA' infringes the plaintiff's registered mark 'VIAGRA' under Sections 29(1) and 29(2)(b) of the Trademark Act," the court concluded.
The court's decision came on a trademark infringement suit filed by Pfizer Products Inc., which sells a well-recognized erectile dysfunction allopathic drug under the "Viagra" trademark.
Saying that there was a "strong possibility" of confusion between the two names due to similarity and overlap in commercial operations, Justice Sanjeev Narula directed Renovation Exports Pvt Ltd "not to use Vigoura or any other mark which is a trademark of Pfizer." Similar" is confusingly similar. Trademark "Viagra".
It also ruled that the plaintiff would be entitled to nominal damages of Rs lakh to be recovered jointly and severally from the defendant institution."The defendants or any person acting on their behalf are enjoined from manufacturing, selling or offering for sale, marketing, advertising or in any other way using any mark similar to 'VIGOURA' or the plaintiff's trademark 'VIAGRA' Any of their goods will be deemed to be infringing or relinquishing the plaintiff's registered mark 'Viagra'," the court said in its order passed on Wednesday.
"Plaintiff's trademark 'Viagra' is highly recognized by its name in the field of erectile dysfunction drugs. They have invested heavily in the manufacturing of Bran and due to its success, 'Viagra' has gained national and global fame, which As a result, the defendants subsequently acquired a right to award damages in favor of the plaintiff on the basis of the mark being imposed with knowledge of the plaintiff's existence,” the court said.It found that there was material that successfully proved Pfizer's position as the owner of the "Viagra" trademark and that the company's successful registration in India proved its exclusive ownership over the brand here.
The court held that "Vigoura" and "Viagra" demonstrated a high degree of sound similarity that could mislead consumers into believing that Vigoura was either a variant of "Viagra" or endorsed by the manufacturers.
Additionally, the overall length of the words and their similar letter arrangement could cause confusion at a glance, especially in environments where consumers make quick decisions, such as online searches or pharmacy purchases, the judge said.
“This initial confusion may occur despite the consumer's overall awareness or knowledge of the differences between allopathic and homeopathic treatments. In such scenarios, while the consumer may understand the difference between the types of treatments (allopathic vs. homeopathic), the similarity in disease may be "And the name or trademark may create an association between the two products based on perceived endorsements or verba accounts or recommendations," he said."Given the similarity between the two trademarks and the overlap in scope of use and commercial operations, as stated above, there is a strong likelihood of confusion among the general public. Thus, the Court answers this issue in favor of the plaintiff .and against the defendants, holding that the defendants' mark 'VIGOURA' infringes the plaintiff's registered mark 'VIAGRA' under Sections 29(1) and 29(2)(b) of the Trademark Act," the court concluded.
