Delhi High Court Upholds "CONTIN" Trademark Rights In Pharma Battle
Delhi High Court Upholds "CONTIN" Trademark Rights In Pharma Battle
Introduction
The Delhi High Court delivers an ex parte ad interim injunction against Care Formulation Labs Pvt. Ltd. and Kureasia Pharma Pvt. Ltd., finding a prima facie view that the alleged impugned mark is visually, phonetically, structurally, identically and deceptively similar to that of the mark of the plaintiff since the suffix “CONTIN” is verbatim same to that of the plaintiff registered mark.
Factual Background
Modi-Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd. is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is part of the Modi group of companies.The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were manufacturing, selling, and advertising a medicinal product under the mark "NEWCONTIN", which infringes its "CONTIN" series of trademarks, including the registered mark “NITROCONTIN".
Procedural Background
The plaintiff and defendants' trade dresses are deceptively similar since they both use the same shade of pink for the container and a white cap with similar dimensions and vertical grooves. The way that the defendant's mark "NEWCONTIN" is written closely matches the plaintiff's trade dress's "NITROCONTIN" writing. This has resulted in gross violation of the rights of the plaintiff and since the defendants continue to manufacture, advertise and sell their product bearing the infringing marks and similar trade dress. Therefore, the plaintiff instituted the captioned suit wherein the present application has been filed.
Issues Involved
1. Trademark Infringement: Whether the defendants' use of the mark "NEWCONTIN" constitutes trademark infringement.
2. Similarity of Marks: Whether the impugned mark is visually, phonetically, and structurally similar to the plaintiff's registered marks.
Contentions of the Parties
Plaintiff's Contentions: The plaintiff contended that the defendants' adoption of the mark "NEWCONTIN" was dishonest and intended to deceive consumers into believing that the defendants' products were associated with the plaintiff.
Defendant's Contentions: The response is yet to be filed by the defendants.
Reasoning and Analysis
The court observed that the impugned mark was visually, phonetically, structurally, and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered marks, suggesting an association with the plaintiff's house of brands. Given this, permitting the defendants to keep using the contested mark may cause confusion among the general public regarding the connection between the defendants' and plaintiff's marks. As a means to prevent such circumstances, especially when it comes to pharmaceutical products, the Court must take a stern approach when determining whether there is a chance of confusion and exercise caution, due diligence, and increased vigilance.
Final Decision
The court presided by Justice Saurabh Banerjee granted an ex parte ad interim injunction on 14th May, 2025 against the defendants. The court has passed a decision restraining the defendants from directly or indirectly dealing in any manner in the products and services consisting of the mark “NEWCONTIN” which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trademark “CONTIN”.
Law Settled
The court's decision reinforces the importance of balance of convenience and irreparable loss that the plaintiff may have to suffer if the injunction is not granted in their favour.
In this case the plaintiff was represented by team Anand & Anand Mr. Pravin Anand, Ms. Prachi Agarwal, Ms. Medha Singh, Mr. Manan Mandal, and Ms. Elisha Sinha, Advocates.
