Bombay High Court protects ‘MEFTAL‑SPAS’ trademark

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday permanently restrained Alto Healthcare from using the mark 'MEFIAL‑SPAS' for pain‑relief medicine, holding that it is deceptively similar to Blue Cross Laboratories’ well‑known 'MEFTAL‑SPAS' trademark and packaging. [Blue Cross Laboratories Pvt Ltd v. Alto Healthcare Pvt Ltd]

Justice Arif S Doctor held that the rival product’s name, packaging and overall look were so close to MEFTAL‑SPAS that ordinary buyers, chemists and even doctors could be misled into thinking the two medicines came from the same source. 

“Blue Cross has demonstrated the visual, phonetic and deceptive similarity between its marks, artistic work. Products are clearly an imitation of its products, and there exists a likelihood of confusion and deception amongst the rival products, and such confusion is likely to cause consumers to purchase Alto's product and thereby cause loss to Blue Cross,” the judge observed.

Blue Cross had sued for infringement of its registered trademarks 'MEFTAL' and 'MEFTAL‑SPAS', as well as its registered copyright in the 'MEFTAL‑SPAS' strip artwork. The company led evidence of long, continuous sales in India and abroad through affidavits of company officers and sales documents.

Justice Doctor found that Alto’s mark 'MEFIAL‑SPAS' had 'simply copied the whole of the Plaintiff’s trade mark ‘MEFTAL‑SPAS’ except for one letter, ‘T’, with the letter ‘I’. 

“There can be no manner of doubt that the visual, phonetic and deceptive similarity between the products and the impugned products demonstrate that Alto’s have blatantly imitated Blue Cross’ products,” the Court held.

The Court further noted that Blue Cross had reproduced the blue and red colour scheme, trade dress and geometric border which showed stark visual similarity that could likely cause confusion and deception amongst the unwary members of the trade and public.

Justice Doctor held that Blue Cross had made out a strong case of both passing off and infringement.

The Court came down heavily on Alto's failure to contest the proceedings, terming their conduct entirely dishonest and actuated by bad faith. 

"Alto’s complete failure to contest the proceedings is a relevant circumstance which lends further credence to Blue Cross' case that the adoption of the impugned mark is entirely dishonest and actuated by bad faith."

Each defendant has been directed to pay ₹5 lakh as costs to Blue Cross within 8 weeks, failing which the amount will carry 8% interest per annum.

Advocates Siddhant Gupta, Prachi Shah, Apeksha Mehta, Rashi Thakur and Vinod A Bhagat appeared for Blue Cross.

[Read order]