The Indian pharmaceutical industry stands for the largest portion as compared to every other sector attaining the highest registration of trademark as compared to other sectors. Trademark in pharmaceutical industry depend upon the relationship between the consumer and the pharmaceutical companies to maintain the basic standards. These companies stand as regulators towards identifying the drugs and any other medicinal products and further help in differentiating them according to the quality and source. The authority that further regulates the pharmaceutical’s trademarks is subjected to the FDA and other associated bodies. They further approve and ensure no conflict among the companies about their name.
What is the Conflict Between Trademark of Pharmaceuticals and Trademark Laws in India?
The issue with the trademark law stands to be similar to the present trademarks which can further lead to misconceptions about medical errors and would lead to critical health consequences. The conflict between the Trademark in pharmaceutical industry and trademark laws of India stays with respect towards the identification of drugs by their names and further can lead to conflict and would then require legal assistance to protect the health of the public.
Name to be Generic and Descriptive
Trademark laws in Pharmaceuticals stands too specific about representing descriptive or generic names but are not certainly protected under the trademark law, as of which they should ensure their availability towards the competitors. Even there arises a challenge as the pharmaceutical companies proceed to obtain trademark names for specific usage. There are instances when the regulatory bodies reject the names to ensure clarity and ensure a clear form of communication.
Anti-dissection rule v. Dominant Mark Test
Trademark laws in Pharmaceuticals stand as the most distinctive factor in establishing differentiation among the available products in the market as stated by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). They further sign a contract for that particular brand and ensure it is being a legitimate product. Both these concepts were decided in the case of South India Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. General Mills Marketing (2014). It was first decided by the Delhi High Court stating the Anti-Dissection rule which further defines a trademark to be decided in a whole rather than analyzing it into parts. The interference stands differentiating the collection made as the proper foundation of the said trademark which shall not be demolished during the time of purchase by an individual. The Dominant Test on the other hand was further announced from the judicial pronouncement.
Trademark laws in Pharmaceuticals stand separate from the trademark law thus it further attracts customers and they can make further justification for the dominant part of the mark. It was set aside by the court as the dominant position mark which can lead to further infringement of the usage of the said mark. It was then delivered by the court that this test further assists towards the holistic perspective as these two ultimately intersect and determine the similarity among the pharmaceutical trademarks. Under the Trademark Act of 1999, Section 15 and Section 17 find these tests unrecognized. But still, the test stands quite common in its usage and also further referred to by the courts also stated that following these concepts might lead to arbitrary decisions.
Pharmaceutical and Public Interest
As part of promoting products, pharmaceutical companies tend to add various short lines like suffixes or prefixes. The case of Mankind Pharma Ltd v. Novakind Bio Science Pvt. Ltd (2021) stated that the product of the plaintiff contained the suffix of “Kind” (Texakind, Metrokind, Dentakind, etc). Thus it was the defendant who restrained against the usage of the same suffix as it had the potential to further deceive the customers and further lead to the loss of the reputation of the plaintiff. The court further placed the nutraceutical as same as of the pharmaceutical in the case of Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v. Ajanta Pharma Ltd (2018) and it was further held in the case restraining the defendant from using “GLOTAB” as it stands similar with the prefix used by the plaintiff stated as “GLOEYE”.
The notion of suffix and prefix states the marks that have the potential to affect the selective ability of the customer’s mind. The right of trademark places an exclusive right over the registered authority as to which it gains a distinctive feature and it further helps the proprietor of the registered trademark to further promote his business and direct the customers towards that particular product.
Pharmaceuticals with similar trademarks tend to use products with similar suffix or prefix which further leads to the possibility of customers purchasing the wrong product.
Misleading Trademarks
The focus stands on the pharmaceutical companies using misleading trademarks which directly affects the interest of the public nexus. The affected are not only party to the case but the general public at large. The aspect of practicing a cautious act should not be further practiced by the customers, similar trademarks with similar words including GENTAC and ZANTAC tend to have a misleading effect on the customer at large. It was held in a case in which the court granted the decision in favor of the plaintiff and further restricted the manufacturing and production of GENTAC leaving the part of “TAC ” as a confusion towards the general public. The general public stays unaware of the strategies adopted by the pharmaceutical companies and this further leads to their purchase and adoption. These matters can be further dealt with with strict rules and regulations.
Conclusion
The aspect of trademark in pharmaceutical industry can be traded with its ruling stated in the “Anti-dissection” rule that was further highlighted in the Trade Mark Act (1999) as of which the trademark mark to be considered as a whole rather than in parts. It can be devastating if a name is used by more than one pharmaceutical which shall be only regulated by a competent authority for the general interest of the public.
FAQs
- What is the main issue with the Trademark laws in Pharmaceuticals?
The issue with the trademark law stands to be similar to the present trademarks which can further lead to misconceptions about medical errors and would lead to critical health consequences.
- What do you understand by generic and descriptive terms?
The trademark law stands too specific about representing descriptive or generic names but is not certainly protected under the trademark law, as of which they should ensure their availability towards the competitors.
- What is the Anti-dissection rule?
The Anti-Dissection rule which further defines a trademark to be decided as a whole rather than analyzing it into parts.
- What do you understand about the usage of suffixes and prefixes in Trademark in pharmaceutical industry?
The notion of suffix and prefix states the marks that have the potential to affect the selective ability of the customer’s mind. Pharmaceuticals with similar trademarks tend to use products with similar suffix or prefix which further leads to the possibility of customers purchasing the wrong product.
- What are misleading trademarks?
The focus stands on the pharmaceutical companies using misleading trademarks which directly affects the interest of the public nexus. The affected are not only party to the case but the general public at large.
