Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 02 JUNE 2011

Mere Registration, Without Intention To Use The Mark, Does Not Give Exclusivity To The Mark.

In Unichem Lab v Ipca Lab, the Plaintiffs, Unichem Laboratories Ltd, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and carrying on business in pharmaceutical preparations, approached the Court with a plea that the Trade Mark of Ipca Lab (the Defendant) was deceptively similar to their own mark ‘LORAM’.

IndiaIntellectual Property
Sonam Lhamu Bhutia
Sonam Lhamu Bhutia
Vasundhara Kamath S
Vasundhara Kamath S
Author LinkedIn connections

In Unichem Lab v Ipca Lab, the Plaintiffs, Unichem Laboratories Ltd, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and carrying on business in pharmaceutical preparations, approached the Court with a plea that the Trade Mark of Ipca Lab (the Defendant) was deceptively similar to their own mark 'LORAM'. Ipca Lab, carrying on businesses of manufacturing and distributing pharmaceutical preparations respectively, had been using the mark 'SELORAM'. The Plaintiff sought for a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from manufacturing and using the said mark.

It was prima facie made clear that since neither the Plaintiffs nor the Defendants were registered proprietors of the respective marks, the claim as made was only in relation to passing off.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from