https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198700 In a passing off dispute over medicinal products, the court applied the stricter confusion test used for drugs and examined the marks as a whole, the class of purchasers, and the overall presentation of the goods. It held that no trader can monopolise a common descriptive or generic prefix that is publici juris, and found that "LIPI" was derived from "Lipid" and used descriptively by several manufacturers. Because the parties' products were prescription medicines launched around the same time and their packaging, composition, dosage form, price, and presentation were materially different, a real likelihood of confusion was not shown and the balance of convenience favoured the defendant. Interim injunction was refused. en-us Mon, 30 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Feb 2018 16:15:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198700 In a passing off dispute over medicinal products, the court applied the stricter confusion test used for drugs and examined the marks as a whole, the class of purchasers, and the overall presentation of the goods. It held that no trader can monopolise a common descriptive or generic prefix that is publici juris, and found that "LIPI" was derived from "Lipid" and used descriptively by several manufacturers. Because the parties' products were prescription medicines launched around the same time and their packaging, composition, dosage form, price, and presentation were materially different, a real likelihood of confusion was not shown and the balance of convenience favoured the defendant. Interim injunction was refused. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 30 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198700