trademark cases
Cadila Healthcare Limited Vs.
Dabur India Limited(2008 (38) PTC 617. (Del.)(DB))
Course-LL.M
Subject-Trademark
Background (brief facts)
The plaintiff in the present case is the owner of Cathilda Healthcare ltd,and is known in the trading market to be the owner of the mark “SUGAR FREE”.Many of his goods are seen to have the mark which are named as "SUGAR FREE NATURA", "SUGAR FREE GOLD" and "SUGAR FREE D'LITE"."SUGAR FREE" was actually coined and accepted by its predecessor (Cadila Chemicals Limited) in respect of its sugar substitute. "SUGAR FREE" contained aspartame - an artificial sweetener. The above three products were distinguished by this artificial sweetener and hence there suffix differed as “natura” due the use of sucralose , “gold” due to the use aspartame.So,the real dispute arises when a company named Dabur India Limited manufactures a product named “chyavanprash” a health tonic, with a mark "SUGAR FREE”. So naturally, plaintiff prays for an interim injunction in order to restrain the defendant from using the expression "Sugar Free" on any of the products manufactured by the defendant as the plaintiff states that by using the expression "Sugar Free" on its products, the defendant is passing off its goods with that of the plaintiff. The plaintiff pleads to restrain such alleged passing off by way of a permanent injunction in the suit against the defendant.
Issues Involved
Whether prima facie expression “Sugar Free” is a coined word or not or in other words whether the plaintiff can at all claim "Sugar Free" as a trademark or not?
Whether a considerable degree of distinctiveness of expression “Sugar Free” in relation to plaintiff's products was prima facie recognized in the defendant’s product or not?
Whether a prima facie case of misrepresentation was made out against the defendant to show his intention to injure the business or goodwill of the plaintiff or not?
Whether an action of passing off
Dabur India Limited(2008 (38) PTC 617. (Del.)(DB))
Course-LL.M
Subject-Trademark
Background (brief facts)
The plaintiff in the present case is the owner of Cathilda Healthcare ltd,and is known in the trading market to be the owner of the mark “SUGAR FREE”.Many of his goods are seen to have the mark which are named as "SUGAR FREE NATURA", "SUGAR FREE GOLD" and "SUGAR FREE D'LITE"."SUGAR FREE" was actually coined and accepted by its predecessor (Cadila Chemicals Limited) in respect of its sugar substitute. "SUGAR FREE" contained aspartame - an artificial sweetener. The above three products were distinguished by this artificial sweetener and hence there suffix differed as “natura” due the use of sucralose , “gold” due to the use aspartame.So,the real dispute arises when a company named Dabur India Limited manufactures a product named “chyavanprash” a health tonic, with a mark "SUGAR FREE”. So naturally, plaintiff prays for an interim injunction in order to restrain the defendant from using the expression "Sugar Free" on any of the products manufactured by the defendant as the plaintiff states that by using the expression "Sugar Free" on its products, the defendant is passing off its goods with that of the plaintiff. The plaintiff pleads to restrain such alleged passing off by way of a permanent injunction in the suit against the defendant.
Issues Involved
Whether prima facie expression “Sugar Free” is a coined word or not or in other words whether the plaintiff can at all claim "Sugar Free" as a trademark or not?
Whether a considerable degree of distinctiveness of expression “Sugar Free” in relation to plaintiff's products was prima facie recognized in the defendant’s product or not?
Whether a prima facie case of misrepresentation was made out against the defendant to show his intention to injure the business or goodwill of the plaintiff or not?
Whether an action of passing off