GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs. Chembott Chemicals and Pharmaceutical Private Limited 29.08.2025 CS(COMM) 916/2025 Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited (the plaintiff), a major player in the global healthcare industry and part of the GSK group, has been using and owning the registered trademark 'COBADEX' since 1958 (Registration No. 185987 in Class 5). This mark is used for multivitamin and mineral deficiency medicines, including tablets, capsules, and previously syrups. The plaintiff started using it in India in 1974 and has built strong goodwill through continuous sales and heavy marketing investments. Its products, like COBADEX CZS (containing ingredients such as Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Nicotinamide, Cyanocobalamin, Folic Acid, Chromium, Zinc, and Selenium), target vitamin and mineral deficiencies in adults. The company has grown its sales significantly over the years and operates in the pharmaceutical sector.
The defendants, Chembott Chemicals and Pharmaceutical Private Limited (Defendant No. 1, a company under the Companies Act, 2013) and its director (Defendant No. 2), are also in the pharmaceutical business. In March 2024, the plaintiff learned of Defendant No. 2's trademark application (No. 6252220) for 'COZIDEX' (the impugned mark), covering similar pharmaceutical products, published in the Trade Marks Journal on 26.02.2024.
The plaintiff opposed this on 23.04.2024, citing prior rights. Defendant No. 2 filed a counter-statement claiming use of 'COZIDEX' but missed deadlines for evidence, filing a late affidavit on 08.05.2025 with invoices from Defendant No. 1 showing the mark on similar products. Defendant No. 1's GST registration is suspended. The plaintiff sent a cease-and-desist notice on 20.06.2025, but defendants replied on 24.06.2025 denying similarity. The opposition is pending before the Trade Marks Registry. The plaintiff believes defendants are using 'COZIDEX' based on the invoices, though the product is not openly available in the market.
Dispute
The core issue is trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiff claims 'COZIDEX' is deceptively similar to 'COBADEX'—phonetically, visually, conceptually, and structurally—because defendants altered 'BA' to 'ZI' in the mark.
Ex parte ad-interim injunction granted until next hearing: Defendants, their directors, officers, employees, agents, dealers, licensees, affiliates, etc., restrained from manufacturing, selling, displaying, advertising, or marketing (online/offline) any products (syrups or others) under 'COZIDEX' or similar marks deceptively akin to 'COBADEX'. Notice issued returnable next date; reply within four weeks, rejoinder four weeks thereafter. Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC compliance within two weeks.
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
No comments:
Post a Comment