https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198682 A registered proprietor cannot ordinarily sustain an infringement claim against another registered proprietor of an identical or similar mark while both registrations subsist, and pending rectification proceedings do not automatically suspend the registered rights. In a passing off dispute over medicinal products, the common prefix drawn from a generic name was not treated as monopolisable, while differences in suffix, packaging, presentation, shelf life and price were relevant to deceptive similarity. The analysis also emphasises balance of convenience and public interest in medicines, with restraint being less likely where continued sale of the defendant's product would cause greater prejudice than allowing the market presence to continue. en-us Tue, 16 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Feb 2018 14:07:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198682 A registered proprietor cannot ordinarily sustain an infringement claim against another registered proprietor of an identical or similar mark while both registrations subsist, and pending rectification proceedings do not automatically suspend the registered rights. In a passing off dispute over medicinal products, the common prefix drawn from a generic name was not treated as monopolisable, while differences in suffix, packaging, presentation, shelf life and price were relevant to deceptive similarity. The analysis also emphasises balance of convenience and public interest in medicines, with restraint being less likely where continued sale of the defendant's product would cause greater prejudice than allowing the market presence to continue. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 16 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198682