In a recent decision by the Bombay High Court, Novartis AG (“Novartis”) successfully obtained an ad-interim injunction against Novarish Healthcare Private Limited (“Novarish”) for trademark infringement and passing off. The court granted Novartis’s plea, restraining Novarish from using the “NOVARISH” trademark, which was deemed deceptively similar to Novartis’s well-known “NOVARTIS” trademark.
Novartis AG is one of the world’s leading global pharmaceutical and healthcare groups. In the suit before the court, Novartis contested that its adoption and use of the trademark /trading name / house mark / company name “NOVARTIS” dated back as early as 1996 and they have been continuously and extensively using the mark since then in India and in more than 140 countries.
Novartis alleged that the defendant, Novarish Healthcare Private Limited had been using the deceptively similar mark “NOVARISH” for similar business of manufacturing and marketing medicinal and pharmaceutical goods.
Novartis had sent multiple cease and desist letters calling upon Novarish to cease and desist from using the mark ‘NOVARISH’. However, no reply was received, and Novartis was left with no other option but to file the present suit.
Upon filing of the suit, Novarish sent some mails and communicated its willingness to discontinue use of the mark NOVARISH. However, when the Plaintiffs shared the consent terms, the Defendant neither replied nor participated in the proceedings.
In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the Court noted that Novartis had made out a strong case for the grant of ad-interim reliefs and unless reliefs were granted, Novartis would suffer irreparable harm. Hence, the court proceeded to grant an injunction against the use of the mark NOVARISH by the defendant.
Citation: Novartis Ag vs Novarish Healthcare Private Limited, Bombay High Court, 13th June, 2024, INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 15051 OF 2023 IN COMMERCIAL IPR SUIT (L) NO. 14893 OF 2023.
Authored by Ms. Ilana Baruah, Consulting and Strategy Team, BananaIP Counsels
Disclaimer
The case note/s in this blog post have been written by IP Attorneys at BananaIP Counsels based on their review and understanding of the Judgments. It may be noted that other IP attorneys and experts in the field may have different opinions about the cases or arrive at different conclusions therefrom. It is advisable to read the Judgments before making any decisions based on the case notes.
If you have any questions, or if you wish to speak with an IP expert/attorney, please reach us at: contact@bananaip.com or 91-80-26860414/24/34.
