INTRODUCTION

The pharmaceutical industry is characterized by fierce competition and a constant race for innovation. In such an environment, trademarks play a critical role, serving not only as a brand identifier but also as a value asset that can greatly impact a company's reputation and market position. The case of “Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Karlin Pharmaceuticals & Exports Pvt. Ltd.2024: MHC:2667” provides a fascinating insight into how trademark disputes can arise, particularly when two companies seek to register similar marks for products in the same category. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, founded in Mumbai, has established itself as a significant player in the pharmaceutical sector. Its trademark "CANDID," associated with dermatological preparations for fungal infections, has gained recognition and established goodwill since its launch in the late 1970s. Conversely, Karlin Pharmaceuticals, a relatively newer entity based in Chennai, applied for the trademark "CANDEX-B" almost two decades later, leading to a legal contention that raises essential questions about trademark distinctiveness and the risk of consumer confusion.

In this blog, we will delve into the detailed aspects of the case, examining the procedural history, the facts that led to the dispute, the legal arguments presented by both parties, and the broader implications of the court's decision. We aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and legal considerations involved in trademark registration and protection within the pharmaceutical industry.

CASE BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The dispute originated when Karlin Pharmaceuticals filed Trade Mark Application No. 749366 for the mark "CANDEX-B" on March 21, 1997. This application was filed under Class 5, which pertains to pharmaceutical products, and was advertised on August 16, 2007. Glenmark, concerned about potential consumer confusion, opposed Karlin's application on January 15, 2008, citing its own established mark "CANDID. “After a thorough examination of the opposition, the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks rejected Glenmark's opposition on July 26, 2013, determining that "CANDEX-B" was a coined and distinctive mark that did not pose a likelihood of confusion with "CANDID." The decision highlighted the visual and phonetic differences between the two marks and deemed the long-standing use of "CANDEX-B" by Karlin as a valid defense. Dissatisfied with the ruling, Glenmark filed an appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, challenging the Deputy Registrar's decision. The central concerns posed by Glenmark involved the similarity of the marks, the potential for consumer confusion, and the argument that Karlin's registration of "CANDEX-B" would unjustly exploit Glenmark's goodwill associated with "CANDID."

KEY ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY THE PARTIES

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals (Appellant)

1.Establishment of Goodwill: Glenmark emphasized that its trademark "CANDID" has been in continuous use since 1978-79, establishing substantial goodwill in the pharmaceutical market. The company argued that this longstanding association allowed them to assert rights over their brand and challenge any similar marks that could mislead consumers.

2. Likelihood of Confusion: The appellant asserted that the similarities between "CANDID" and "CANDEX-B" could confuse consumers. Given that both marks are related to dermatological preparations, the likelihood of confusion must be treated with the utmost seriousness. Glenmark pointed to the common prefix "CAND" and the brevity of the suffix as factors that could mislead consumers.

3. Well-Known Trademark Recognition: Glenmark pointed out that the Bombay High Court had declared "CANDID" a well-known trademark. This recognition should grant further protection against similar marks under Indian trademark law.

4. Lack of Due Diligence: Glenmark argued that Karlin did not perform adequate prior searches in the Trade Marks Register before adopting "CANDEX-B," which further undermined their argument of a bona fide adoption.

Karlin Pharmaceuticals (Respondent)

1. Honest Adoption: Karlin Pharmaceuticals countered that "CANDEX-B" was derived from the medical condition "candidiasis," thus constituting a valid, honest coinage. They emphasized that many traders create marks from disease names, which inherently makes such marks less distinctive and deserving of limited protection.

2. Concurrent Use: Karlin pointed out that it had been using "CANDEX-B" for over a decade, long before Glenmark stated its trademark had been declared well-known. This usage, they claimed, should be protected as honest concurrent use under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act.

3. Distinctiveness of Marks: The respondent insisted that the visual, phonetic, and structural differences between the two marks were significant enough to eliminate any likelihood of consumer confusion. They argued that the minor similarities did not constitute grounds for refusing registration.

4. Abandoned Applications: Additionally, Karlin noted that Glenmark's earlier trademark applications for "CANDID" were abandoned, thereby implying that Glenmark could not impose restrictions on subsequent registrations.

To know more about this, please follow the below link.

KEY LEGAL PROVISIONS

To understand the implications of this case, we must examine the relevant sections of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, specifically:

·       Section 9: This section outlines the absolute grounds for refusal, which includes a lack of distinctive character and the potential to deceive the public or cause confusion.

·       Section 11: This section provides relative grounds for refusal where a mark is identical or similar to a prior mark with respect to similar goods or services, leading to a likelihood of confusion, as well as the protection of well-known marks.

·       Section 12: This section discusses honest concurrent use—allowing the registration of marks that have been actively used in a manner that does not infringe on the rights of other established marks.

CONCLUSION

The case of “Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Karlin Pharmaceuticals & Exports Pvt. Ltd.2024: MHC:2667” serves as an essential reference point in understanding the complexities of trademark law in the pharmaceutical industry. The ruling not only addresses the specifics of trademark distinctiveness and the potential for consumer confusion but also highlights the strategic manoeuvres that companies must consider when applying for trademark registration. For Glenmark, the acknowledgement of "CANDID" as a well-known trademark stands as a testament to its established position in the pharmaceutical market. The ruling underscores the notion that established brands must protect their trademarks vigorously against potential infringers who may seek to benefit from their goodwill. However, for Karlin, the court's recognition of the honest concurrent use defense presents an important precedent, allowing newer companies the opportunity to establish their marks while balancing the interests of older, established names. Overall, this case brings to light the ongoing challenges and considerations of trademark registration and protection, particularly in an industry as competitive as pharmaceuticals. As the landscape continues to evolve, the principles set forth in this case will influence how similar disputes are adjudicated in the future.