Passing off in medicinal products turns on deceptive similarity, confusion risk, and delay before interim injunction relief.

In a passing off dispute over medicinal products, interlocutory relief depends on whether the rival marks are deceptively similar so as to create a real likelihood of confusion, with a stricter approach applied because confusion in medicines may have harmful consequences. The marks "NIFTAS" and "NIFTRAN" were found not materially similar phonetically or visually, and the products also differed in packaging, form, price, and release profile. The plaintiff's unexplained delay in approaching the court further weighed against ad interim protection. Interim injunction against use of the mark was refused, with only limited protective directions concerning accounts and packaging changes.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff was entitled to interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark "NIFTAS" in a passing off action concerning medicinal products, and whether delay, laches, and the material dissimilarities between the competing products defeated the claim for ad interim relief.

Analysis: The competing marks were examined in the context of registered trademarks, so infringement was not made out and the dispute proceeded essentially on passing off. In a passing off action, the decisive question is whether the rival marks are so similar as to create a likelihood of confusion, bearing in mind that medicinal products require a stricter approach because confusion may have harmful consequences. The Court found that "NIFTAS" and "NIFTRAN" were neither phonetically nor visually similar in a material sense, noting that the products differed in packaging, form, price, and release profile. The Court also relied on the plaintiff's unexplained delay in approaching the Court after the defendant's launch and registration process had become public, and held that the lapse of time, coupled with the dissimilarities, weighed against grant of interlocutory relief.

Conclusion: Interim injunction was refused. The plaintiff obtained only limited protective directions requiring maintenance of accounts and restricting change of packaging without leave of the Court, while the substantive restraint against use of "NIFTAS" was declined.

Final Conclusion: The application for interlocutory relief was substantially rejected, with only ancillary safeguards granted pending trial.

Ratio Decidendi: In a passing off dispute concerning medicinal products, interlocutory injunction will not be granted where the rival marks are not deceptively similar and the plaintiff's unexplained delay, together with materially distinguishing product features, negatives a real likelihood of confusion.

---