#CaseBrief: Cadila Healthcare ltd v. Cadila Pharmaceutical ltd, 2001(5), SC 73, PTC 541 SC

Applicant of the case: Cadila healthcare Ltd.

Respondent of the case: Cadila pharmaceutical Ltd.

Bench: J. B.N.Kripal, J. Doraswamy Raju, J. British Kumar

Date Of The Judgement: 26TH MARCH, 2001

Case Summary

The appellant and the respondent are pharmaceutical companies who have launched medicinal products named Falcitab and Falcigo respectively and registered it in the year 1996 and 1997 respectively.
In the year 1998, the appellants realised that the respondent had a product similar to it in name and purpose and filed for an injunction restraining them from further trade before the district court of Vadodara.
This was dismissed by the court in favour of the respondents for the reasons that the two products were different in appearance, formulation, and price and that they were scheduled L products i.e they were sold directly to the hospitals/clinic and not directly to the individuals. Hence, there wasn’t any scope for confusion. After this, the appellants approached the high court.
The high court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that there was little chance of passing off and there was no likelihood of confusion. When of the order passed by the lower courts since it was under the obligation for the speedy disposal of the case.
This case involves a question of passing off which is different from the infringement of the trademark. The appellants approached the Supreme Court, it refused to delve into the matter of the validity and legality

Laws Involved:

Sections 27 & 28 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.

Issues:

Whether or not the sale of the ‘Falcigo’ drug by the respondent amounts to passing off?
Whether the mark of Cadila Pharmaceutical i.e., ‘Falcitab’ is similar to the mark of Cadila Healthcare i.e., ‘Falcigo’?

Judgement:

The Supreme Court, in this case, laid the factors that need to be considered while deciding cases like these and ordered the trial court to decide the case based on these factors. The factors are:

Nature of the goods and marks(written or label or composite marks)
Degree of resemblance
People who are likely to buy the goods based on the mark.
Mode of purchasing or placing orders for the goods
Any other surrounding circumstances.

Conclusion

In the present case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court gave its judgement after carefully interpreting various domestic and foreign judgements. More importantly, the Court observed that, even though both the drugs belonged to the ‘Schedule L’ category, there was a high probability of confusion being created between them leading to a case of passing off and deceptive similarity.

Generally, a case of passing off of non-medical products only leads to damage of goodwill or economic loss, however, in the case of medicinal products, the damage might lead to grave effects on the lives of people. The Apex Court ruled the present case as a case of deceptive similarity, and thus, the decision was given in favour of the applicant, i.e., Cadila Healthcare Ltd.