Case: Duphar-Interfran Ltd., Bombay Vs Cadila Antibiotics Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad. Trademark Tribunal

CounselFor Appellant: Mr. V.G. Nair, i/by M/s. DePenning & DePenning, Advocates and For Respondents: Mr. R.R. Shah, Advocate
JudgesM. C. Gupta, ARTM
IssueTrade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 11(a), 12(1), 18(1), 18(4)
Judgement DateApril 03, 1991
CourtTrademark Tribunal


M. C. Gupta, ARTM

  1. On 28th August, 1988 the above given opponents lodged a notice of opposition on form TM-5 objecting to the registration of the trade mark "GONOCIN" for the specification goods "Pharmaceuticals and medicinal preparation", the subject matter of an Application No. 447712 dated 3rd January, 1986,filed by the above given applicants. This application was advertised before acceptance under Section 20(1) (Proviso) vide Journal No. 940 at. Ist August, 1988 at page 536.

    The grounds taken by the opponents in their notice of opposition are as follows:-

    (a) That the opponents are the registered proprietors of a trade mark CROCIN, under No. 389215 in respect of "medicinal preparation in the form of tablets and syrup" and that they are using the said mark since 1963.

    (b) That the impugned trade mark of the applicants' "GONOCIN" is deceptively similar to the opponents' mark "CROCIN" and that the rival goods are of the same description.


    (c) That having regard to the use and reputation of the opponent's mark "CROCIN"s, the use of the applicant's mark "GONOCIN" would cause confusion and deception amongst the medical practitioners the chemists and the general public.

    (d) That the adoption of a deceptively similar mark "GONOCIN" by the applicants is deliberate with a view to benefit from the reputation of the opponents mark "CROCIN".

    The opponents submitted that the registration of the applicant's mark "GONOCIN" would be contrary to the provisions of Sections 11(a), 12(1) and 18(1) of the Trade and Merchandise Mark Act, 1958. It was also stated in their notice of opposition that since the goods involved in the impugned mark are medicinal preparations, this Tribunal, in the exercise of its discretion refuse the application keeping in view the interest of the general public.

  2. In their counter-statement, filed on 3rd June, 1989 the applicants simply denied all the averments of the opponents. The applicants' counter-statement is full of denials and lacks application of mind.

  3. In support of their opposition the opponents filed evidence in the form of an affidavit of Madhukant Joshi (General Manager & Secretary of the opponents) dt. 5th September, 1989 alongwith Exhibits A (Copies of invoices) and Exhibits B (Copies of advertisement). The applicants evidence under Rule 54 consists of an affidavit of Arun Mr. Parikh (Constituted Attorney of the applicants) alongwith Exhibit A (Copy of the search report dt. 12th December, 1985)...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT