https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196935 In an interlocutory trademark dispute involving pharmaceutical products, prima facie deceptive similarity was assessed with heightened caution because confusion can affect health. Although the marks "LOPARIN" and "LOPRIN" showed some phonetic and visual resemblance, the products differed materially in nature, administration, packaging, price, and therapeutic use, with one being an oral preventive tablet and the other an injectable critical-care medicine. The court also considered delay, alleged acquiescence, and the defendants' established sales and market presence, and found the balance of convenience supported the defendants. The ex parte interim injunction was vacated, and continued restraint was declined, subject to yearly sales statements. en-us Wed, 04 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Feb 2018 11:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196935 In an interlocutory trademark dispute involving pharmaceutical products, prima facie deceptive similarity was assessed with heightened caution because confusion can affect health. Although the marks "LOPARIN" and "LOPRIN" showed some phonetic and visual resemblance, the products differed materially in nature, administration, packaging, price, and therapeutic use, with one being an oral preventive tablet and the other an injectable critical-care medicine. The court also considered delay, alleged acquiescence, and the defendants' established sales and market presence, and found the balance of convenience supported the defendants. The ex parte interim injunction was vacated, and continued restraint was declined, subject to yearly sales statements. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 04 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196935