Business Daily from THE HINDU group of publications
Sunday, Nov 26, 2006
ePaper
Business Daily from THE HINDU group of publications Sunday, Nov 26, 2006 ePaper |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate
-
Courts/Legal Issues Industry & Economy - IPR Novalgin, Novigan have no similarity, rules HC Our Legal Correspondent
Chennai , Nov. 25 Trademarks Novigan and Novalgin hardly have any similarity and are not likely to cause any confusion, the Madras High Court has held. A Division Bench, after hearing an appeal filed by a person from Hyderabad under Section 105 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 against the order of a single judge holding that distinctive and essential features of both marks when pronounced phonetically sound alike, said they were unable to uphold the conclusion of the single judge. The Bench, comprising Mr Justice P.K. Misra and Mr Justice M. Jaichandren, said law was well settled that when a technically competent body examined matter, the court was not expected to interfere with such order unless it was found to be wholly unsustainable. The Assistant Registrar of Trademarks came to the conclusion that there was hardly any similarity between the two trademarks and that it was not likely to cause any confusion. The Bench said the order passed by competent authority should not have been interfered with in the absence of weighty reasons. According to the respondent, Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft, they were owners of registered trademark, Novalgin. They opposed registration by the appellant, Dr Anji Reddy of Hyderabad, of the Novigan trademark on the grounds that trademark applied for was deceptively similar to trademark registered by respondent in respect of same class of goods. Hoechst contended that the Novalgin trademark had been registered and was continuously in use ever since 1956. The Novigan trademark sought to be registered by appellant was deceptively similar to Novalgin and hence, such registration was barred under Section 11(a) of the Act. The Bench said there was hardly any phonetic similarity between the two trademarks except the fact that both marks started with `Nov'; when the names are pronounced there is hardly any similarity. The respondent could not claim that any other manufacturer could not use the words `Nova' or `Nov'. "We have come across many other pharmaceutical preparations that start with Nova or Nov."
More Stories on : Courts/Legal Issues | IPR | Pharmaceuticals
Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page
|
Stories in this Section |
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | The Hindu ePaper | Business Line | Business Line ePaper | Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | The Hindu Images | Home |
Copyright © 2006, The
Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu Business Line
|