top of page
  • SC IP

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited vs. Smart Laboratories Pvt Ltd CS(COMM) 744/2023

Updated: Dec 5, 2023


The Delhi High Court (โ€œCourtโ€) granted injunction in the case filed by ๐ƒ๐ซ. ๐‘๐ž๐๐๐ฒโ€™๐ฌ ๐‹๐š๐›๐จ๐ซ๐š๐ญ๐จ๐ซ๐ข๐ž๐ฌ ๐‹๐ข๐ฆ๐ข๐ญ๐ž๐ (โ€œPlaintiffโ€) v/s ๐’๐ฆ๐š๐ซ๐ญ ๐‹๐š๐›๐จ๐ซ๐š๐ญ๐จ๐ซ๐ข๐ž๐ฌ ๐๐ฏ๐ญ. ๐‹๐ญ๐. (โ€œDefendantโ€) for use of the mark โ€œAZIWAKEโ€ as it was phonetically deceptively similar to the Plaintiffโ€™s mark AZIWOK.


The court based the observation on the Pianotist Test, which has, "come to be regarded as the gold standard, having been followed and adopted in, among others, the decisions of the Supreme Court", the High Court held that there was no real distinction between their look and sound.


The Court states that the competing words are, in the present case, "AZIWOK" and "AZIWAKE". There is no real distinction between their "look" and "sound", especially as the plaintiff holds a word mark registration for the word "AZIWOK". Though, considering the buyer side, it is obvious that AZIWAKE is phonetically similar to AZIWOK, as they sound deceptively identical to the ear. Additionally, Both the marks are used for the same pharmaceutical preparation, namely, azithromycin.


The Court restrained the defendant from using the impugned mark regarding pharmaceutical preparations, or for any other allied of cognate goods or services. It was also clarified that no injunction was passed against the batches of AZIWAKE already circulating in the market or which had been manufactured.

135 views0 comments

Comments


bottom of page