<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Delhi High Court Clarifies Trademark Protection for Pharmaceutical Brands: Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=16691</link>
    <description>Pharmaceutical trademark protection does not extend to common prefixes derived from an International Non-Proprietary Name or active ingredient, where those elements are descriptive and available for common use in the trade. In assessing deceptive similarity, the analysis must focus on the distinctive portions of the competing marks, and not on shared INN-based elements that are publici juris. A final finding of trademark infringement after trial requires evidence establishing a legally sustainable likelihood of confusion. Visual comparison alone is insufficient at the adjudicatory stage.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2026 08:25:03 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2026 08:25:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=907762" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Delhi High Court Clarifies Trademark Protection for Pharmaceutical Brands: Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=16691</link>
      <description>Pharmaceutical trademark protection does not extend to common prefixes derived from an International Non-Proprietary Name or active ingredient, where those elements are descriptive and available for common use in the trade. In assessing deceptive similarity, the analysis must focus on the distinctive portions of the competing marks, and not on shared INN-based elements that are publici juris. A final finding of trademark infringement after trial requires evidence establishing a legally sustainable likelihood of confusion. Visual comparison alone is insufficient at the adjudicatory stage.</description>
      <category>Articles</category>
      <law>Other Topics</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2026 08:25:03 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=16691</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>