Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction In Favor Of FDC Limited Against Palsons Derma's 'CHROMALITE' Mark

Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction In Favor Of FDC Limited Against Palsons Derma's 'CHROMALITE' Mark

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction in favor of FDC Limited, restraining Palsons Derma Private Limited from using the mark "CHROMALITE", which the Court found deceptively similar to FDC's registered trademark "KROMALITE".

Factual Background

FDC Limited, a pharmaceutical company, filed a suit against Palsons Derma, alleging that the defendant's mark "CHROMALITE" was deceptively similar to its registered mark "KROMALITE", used for medicinal preparations and cosmetic products. FDC adopted the mark "KROMALITE" in 2014 and commercially launched its products in 2016.

Procedural Background

The Court considered the plaintiff's application for an interim injunction, weighing the likelihood of confusion between the two marks and the potential harm to FDC's brand identity.

Issues Involved

1. Deceptive Similarity: Whether the defendant's mark "CHROMALITE" was deceptively similar to FDC's mark "KROMALITE".

2. Prior Use and Goodwill: Whether FDC had established prior use and goodwill in its mark.

3. Passing Off Action: Whether FDC had a prima facie case for passing off despite the defendant's valid registrations.

Contentions of the Parties

Plaintiff's Contentions: FDC argued that the defendant's mark was deceptively similar, and its prior use and goodwill would be damaged by the defendant's actions.

Defendant's Contentions: Palsons Derma claimed that its mark "CHROMALITE" was independently derived and that its packaging and sales process would prevent consumer confusion.

Reasoning and Analysis

The bench led by Justice Amit Bansal analyzed the marks and found that "KROMALITE" and "CHROMALITE" were phonetically identical and structurally similar, creating a significant likelihood of confusion among consumers. The Court also rejected the defendant's defenses, including differences in packaging and the requirement of prescriptions for sales.

Final Decision

The Court granted an interim injunction in favor of FDC, restraining Palsons Derma from manufacturing, marketing, or selling products under the mark "CHROMALITE" or any other mark similar to "KROMALITE".

Implications

This decision signifies the importance of protecting trademarks, especially in the pharmaceutical and cosmetic sectors where consumer trust is crucial. The Court's decision reinforces the need for companies to conduct thorough trademark searches and avoid deceptively similar branding.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Prithvi Singh, Advocate.