In its interim order, Justice B D Ahmed rejected Cadila's claim that use of mark Sugar free by Dabur and Shree Baidyanath, which were allegedly using Cadila Sugar Free mark, is likely to cause any confusion or deception among consumers about the origin of goods.
Cadila Healthcare, a market leader in sugar substitute business, had dragged Dabur and Baidyanath to the High Court seeking restraint order against them from using its trademark Sugar Free or any other mark which is identical or deceptively similar to it in their Chywanprakash and Chyawanprash Ganules respectively.
Counsel for Dabur and Baidyanath Hemant Singh said it is a landmark judgment which will have significant implication in the field of intellectual property rights.
"It is a message to the industry that where a corporation adopts a descriptive mark as trademark it should be prepared for competitive use thereof by other members of industries and all bonafide of such marks is always in public domain and can't be subject of monopoly by any individual," Singh said.
More From This Section
Cadila, through its counsel Pratibha Singh, had contended that from the packaging of Dabur's product 'Sugar Free Chyawanprakash' and Baidyanath's product 'Sugar Free Chyawanprash Granules', it appears that the mark 'Sugar Free' was emphasized and written in big sized fonts.