Milmet Oftho Industries v. Allergen Inc (2004) 12 SCC 624
FACTS
The respondent was using the TM ‘OCUFLOX’ globally and their TM application in India was pending. Milmet Oftho was a pharma company selling eye/nasal drop by the name ‘OCUFLOX’ in India, and their TM application in India was also pending. The respondent filed a suit for injunction against the passing off of their product.
ISSUE
Is there infringement ?
HELD
High Court – the product of the defendant was not sold in India and hence they were not entitled to an injunction- the plaintifff company sold the eye drop in Indian market.
Appeal DV HC – Decision reversed – the respondents were the first to enter the market and hence they were entitled to injunction
Supreme Court – followed guidelines laid down in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. – in case of medical products, stricter standards are needed cause the potential harm in case of confusion is far more dire than in a case of normal products.
If a mark in respect of a drug is associated with the Respondents worldwide it would lead to an anomalous situation if an identical mark in respect of a similar drug is allowed to be sold in India.
In the present case, it was irrelevant that the mark was not used in India- it was enough that the defendant was the first to enter the market globally.
Video Summary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tazZvmBxCjg&list=PL-1DBVyVi7EaCojbQa5_XKBVJqA1y1REh&index=4