The Bombay High Court has refused to grant an interim injunction to Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, allowing Meghmani Lifesciences Limited to continue using the trademark “EsiRaft” for its pharmaceutical product. The court found that the mark is not deceptively similar to Sun Pharma’s “RACIRAFT” and that there is no likelihood of confusion between the two marks.
Sun Pharma had filed a trademark infringement and passing off suit against Meghmani Lifesciences, claiming that the use of “EsiRaft” infringed on its goodwill and was likely to cause confusion among consumers. However, the court held that the marks are visually and phonetically dissimilar and that the element “RAFT” is descriptive of the product’s characteristics and cannot be used to establish deceptive similarity.
The court also noted that the prefixes “RACI” and “ESI” are distinct and that Meghmani Lifesciences’ adoption of the mark was bona fide. The company had explained that “ESI” referred to “Enhanced System Improvement” and “Esophageal Symptom Index”. The court observed that the use of two-color combinations on the packaging was common in the trade and was insufficient to establish infringement.
The court applied the principles of trademark law, including the anti-dissection rule, the viewpoint of an average consumer with imperfect recollection, and the likelihood of confusion. It found that the competing marks are prima facie visually and phonetically dissimilar and will not create any confusion in the minds of consumers.
In dismissing Sun Pharma’s interim injunction plea, the court held that the company had failed to make out a prima facie case of trademark infringement or passing off. The court also vacated an earlier ex-parte ad-interim injunction that had restrained Meghmani Lifesciences from using the disputed mark. The decision allows Meghmani Lifesciences to continue using the “EsiRaft” mark for its product, which is used to treat heartburn and indigestion.
The case highlights the importance of careful consideration of trademark similarity and the need for companies to establish a strong case of infringement or passing off in order to obtain an interim injunction. The court’s decision is significant, as it allows Meghmani Lifesciences to continue marketing its product without interruption, while also protecting the rights of Sun Pharma to pursue its claims in the main suit.
The court’s observation that the get-up of the marks itself is different and the overall visual appearance of the rival products is dissimilar, is crucial in determining the likelihood of confusion. The decision also emphasizes the need for companies to ensure that their trademarks are distinctive and do not infringe on the rights of other companies.
In conclusion, the Bombay High Court’s decision in this case provides guidance on the principles of trademark law and the factors that are considered in determining the likelihood of confusion between two marks. The decision is a significant one, as it allows Meghmani Lifesciences to continue using the “EsiRaft” mark, while also protecting the rights of Sun Pharma to pursue its claims in the main suit.