Time and again, it has been held by various courts that an unreasonable delay in enforcing a legal right by a person amounts to acquiescence, which can be fatal to a case for the grant of an interim injunction. In a recent trademark case, the
Background
On
The Plaintiff "
The Defendant contended that the Plaintiff was not selling the medicines under the trademark AMADAY in
Issues
Three issues came under scrutiny in the case, i.e., whether exporting products amounted to use of the trademark; whether there was dishonest use in the present case; and whether delay in filing the suit was sufficient to refuse an injunction. These are discussed in more detail below.
- Whether export of products under a mark amounts to use of the trademark?
The Court decided that export did amount to the use of a trademark. The Court said a conjoint reading of Section 29(6)(c) along with Section 56 (use of trade mark for export trade and use when form of trade connection changes) of the Indian Trademarks Act 1999 ("Act") would constitute export as the use of the trademark "for any purpose for which such use is material under the Act or any other law".
Additionally, the Defendant had raised an argument that the Plaintiff did not have a license to sell its medicine in
- Whether the adoption of the mark "ANADAY" by the Defendant was dishonest?
The Court held that even though the rival marks were similar, the Defendant had a clear explanation as to why it coined the word ANADAY — i.e., by taking the first three letters from the compound name "ANASTROZOLE" and "DAY" as the drug had to be taken once a day. The Court also stated that there was no material on record to show that the Defendant dishonestly adopted the mark ANADAY to ride on the reputation and/or goodwill of the Plaintiff's mark. This was because the Plaintiff has no sales in
- Whether the suit was delayed, and whether the delay was sufficient in disentitling the Plaintiff from an interim injunction?
The Court observed that the Plaintiff was aware of the Defendant's application for a trademark since 2008, while the present suit was instituted in 2019. The Plaintiff had continued to participate in the opposition proceedings against the Defendant at the Trademarks Registry, which led to the Defendant's abandonment of its application. The Court stated that the abandonment of the application did not mean abandonment of the sale of the goods under the mark. The Plaintiff, despite having knowledge of the Defendant's use of the mark, did not show due diligence to enquire about the sale of goods under the Defendant's mark.
The Court concluded that even though both the marks were deceptively similar, there was no material on record to show the Defendant dishonestly adopted the mark. Therefore, the Court found no grounds to grant an interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff. The Court also stated that the chances of likelihood of confusion arising amongst the relevant audience was negligible, as the Plaintiff's product was not available over-the-counter, and the possibility of a chemist mistaking the handwriting on a prescription was negligible.
Conclusion
The present case is instructive as it gives potential Defendants some guidance on what they will need to demonstrate in order to avail the equitable defense of acquiescence. A Defendant can minimise liability when faced with a claim of trademark infringement by establishing the defence of acquiescence and substantiating honest adoption of the mark.
Originally published
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Mr Essenese Obhan
N - 94, Second Floor
110017
Tel: 114 020 0200
Fax: 114 020 0299
E-mail: Essenese@obhans.com
URL: www.obhanandassociates.com
© Mondaq Ltd, 2020 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source