| Case ID |
088f1150-24ee-48a2-a7c7-b5e7998bed75 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Suit No. 1203 of 2007 |
| Decision Date |
Apr 03, 2015 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court dismissed the application for a permanent injunction sought by NOVARTIS AG against NABIQASIM INDUSTRIES (PRIVATE) LIMITED. The plaintiff argued that the defendant's trademark 'Descol' was confusingly similar to its trademark 'Lescol', claiming that the similarity could mislead consumers regarding the source of the pharmaceutical products. However, the court determined that both trademarks, when viewed in their entirety, did not present deceptive similarity. The court noted that pharmaceutical products are typically sold based on prescriptions from licensed professionals, reducing the likelihood of consumer confusion. The court emphasized that the names 'Lescol' and 'Descol' are phonetically similar but differ in prefix and overall presentation. Thus, the application for an interim injunction was dismissed, concluding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for trademark infringement. |
| Summary |
In the case of NOVARTIS AG vs NABIQASIM INDUSTRIES (PRIVATE) LIMITED, the Sindh High Court addressed a dispute over trademark infringement concerning two pharmaceutical products. The plaintiff, NOVARTIS AG, owned the trademark 'Lescol', which it registered in 1991. The defendant, NABIQASIM INDUSTRIES, registered its trademark 'Descol' in 2003. The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction, claiming that the defendant's trademark was deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion among consumers. The court examined the phonetic, visual, and structural similarities between the two trademarks. Ultimately, the court ruled that no deceptive similarity existed when considering the trademarks as a whole, particularly given the context of pharmaceutical sales where professional prescriptions govern product selection. The ruling highlights the importance of trademark distinctiveness and the unique nature of pharmaceutical products in trademark law, reinforcing that common generic components cannot confer exclusive rights. This case underscores critical aspects of trademark law, particularly in the pharmaceutical sector, where consumer safety and informed choice are paramount. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
NOVARTIS AG,
NABIQASIM INDUSTRIES (PRIVATE) LIMITED
|
| Judges |
MUHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI, J
|
| Lawyers |
|
| Petitioners |
NOVARTIS AG through Authorized Signatory
|
| Respondents |
NABIQASIM INDUSTRIES (PRIVATE) LIMITED through Chief Executive/Director/Company Secretary
|
| Citations |
2015 SLD 2841,
2015 CLD 1162
|
| Other Citations |
Jamia Industries Ltd. v. Caltex Oil (Pak.) Ltd. PLD 1984 SC 8,
Societe Des Products Nestle S.A. v. Food International (Pvt.) Ltd. 2004 CLD 1383,
Platinum Pharmaceuticals Company (Private) Limited v. Stand Pharm Pakistan (Private) Limited 2006 CLD 1109,
National Detergents Ltd. v. Mod International (Pvt.) Ltd. 1993 MLD 590,
Lipha Lyonnaise Industrielle Pharmaceutique v. Registrar of Trademarks 2009 CLD 1289,
Bayer A.G. v. Macter International (Pvt.) Ltd. 2003 CLD 794,
English Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Chas Mendoza Pharmaceutical Laboratories 1998 MLD 1234,
Johann A. Wulfing v. Chemical Industrial and Pharmaceutical Laboratories AIR 1984 Bombay 281
|
| Laws Involved |
Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001),
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)
|
| Sections |
8(1),
40,
O. XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2,
54
|