Himalaya Drug wins Liv 52 trademark battle
It was also said two products were "different, one is an ayurvedic medicine and the other homoeopathic preparation."
Himalaya Drug had filed the appeal against the judgment of a single judge bench by which the suit against M/s SBL Ltd for "infringement of trade mark Liv.52 by use of trade mark LIV-T by SBL Ltd was dismissed and it was held that there is no case made out of infringement of registered trade mark."
Allowing the appeal, the bench said, "The plaintiff (Himalaya Drug) in the present case was able to prove that the Liv.52 is still distinctive. The customers purchase the product of the plaintiff by asking Liv.52 which is being used for over the last 57 years.
"It has also come in evidence that the mark LIV is the essential feature of the registered trade mark Liv.52. On the other hand, the defendant (SBL) was unable to prove that it is a generic word and becomes common to the trade."
I a 32-page judgement, the court said it was pertinent to mention that on one hand, SBL Ltd's entire case is that mark 'LIV' is a generic word and is "unprotectable" in law, but on the other hand, "the defendant itself applied for registration of 'LIV-T' in the Trademarks Registry for getting the exclusive right ...Therefore, the findings arrived at by the single judge ...are not correct and the same are set aside."
Be the first to comment.
