Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 24 NOVEMBER 2015

Neon Laboratories v. Medical Technologies

S&A Law Offices
S&A Law Offices
Contributor
S&A Law Offices

S&A Law Offices

S&A Law Offices is a full-service law firm headquartered in Delhi NCR. The firm has 300+...

View firm profile
Explore more from S&A Law Offices

In effect, the Supreme Court held that a prior application for registration of a mark is of no assistance if the use of the said mark is commenced after twelve years that too after the rival's use of their mark.

IndiaIntellectual Property

On 17 July 2005, Medical Technologies filed a passing off action against Neon before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad after Neon started using the mark ROFOL in 2004, which as per Medical Technologies was similar to Medical Technologies' mark PROFOL used since 1998. In its primary defence, Neon argued that it is the prior adopter (although admitting that it was the subsequent user) of the mark ROFOL since it applied for registration of the same in 1992 (when Medical Technologies was not even an entity in the market) which subsequently proceeded to registration in 2001. The City Civil Court was pleased to restrain Neon from using the mark ROFOL on the basis of Medical Technologies' prior common law rights in the mark PROFOL. Neon, thereafter, preferred an appeal before the Gujarat High Court which was rejected. The Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court), giving credence to the 'first in the market' test, has passed a significant decision in the case of Neon Laboratories

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