MEFTAL-Spas & MEFIAL-Spas Have Deceptive Similarity: Bombay High Court Restrains Alto Healthcare From Using Infringing Mark
The plaintiff established continuous use of MEFTAL-SPAS since 1991 in India and overseas; the Court noted reputation and goodwill of registered mark.
The Bombay High Court has restrained Alto Healthcare Private Limited and another from using the mark MEFIAL-SPAS, holding that the product was deceptively similar to the registered trademarks MEFTAL and MEFTAL-SPAS of Blue Cross Laboratories Private Limited. The Court found that the defendants had copied not only the trademark but also the distinctive packaging, colour scheme and artistic work associated with the pharmaceutical product.
The Bench was dealing with the commercial intellectual property suit, where it noted that the defendants had merely replaced the letter T in MEFTAL-SPAS with the letter I to create the impugned mark MEFIAL-SPAS. The Court observed that the rival marks exhibited visual, phonetic and deceptive similarity, which was likely to cause confusion among consumers and members of the trade.
Justice Arif Doctor observed, “It is clearly evident that the Defendants have simply copied the whole of the Plaintiff’s trade mark ‘MEFTAL-SPAS’ except for one letter, 'T', with the letter 'I' to form the impugned mark ‘MEFIAL-SPAS’. Comparison of the rival products makes it plain that the impugned mark and the artistic work are deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s trade marks and artistic work. It is clear that the Defendants have also copied the blue and red colour scheme packaging of the Plaintiff’s products and its trade dress on the packaging and the body of the impugned products...”.
“…I am also of the view that besides the stark visual similarity between the Plaintiff’s and the Defendants’ impugned products, there evidently exists a phonetic resemblance between the Plaintiff’s trade marks viz., ‘MEFTAL’ and 'MEFTAL-SPAS', and the impugned mark ‘MEFIALSPAS’, which is likely to cause confusion and deception amongst the unwary members of the trade and public. Thus, there can be no manner of doubt that the visual, phonetic and deceptive similarity between the Plaintiff’s products and the impugned products demonstrate that the Defendants have blatantly imitated the Plaintiff’s products”, the Bench further noted.
Advocate Siddhant Gupta appeared for the plaintiff while none appeared for the defendant.
The dispute arose after Blue Cross Laboratories, the registered proprietor of the trademarks MEFTAL and MEFTAL-SPAS, alleged that the defendants were marketing analgesic and antispasmodic preparations under the deceptively similar mark MEFIAL-SPAS. The company also claimed infringement of its registered copyright in the artistic work appearing on the MEFTAL-SPAS strip and carton.
The Court accepted that the plaintiff had established prior and continuous use of the trademarks since the 1980s, with the marks acquiring distinctiveness and goodwill in the pharmaceutical market. It noted that the plaintiff had produced evidence of registrations, sales records and export use demonstrating the association of the marks exclusively with its products.
While granting relief, the Court observed that the defendants had copied the blue and red colour scheme, trade dress and overall packaging of the plaintiff’s product. It held that such imitation of a pharmaceutical product raised concerns beyond ordinary trademark infringement, as medicines directly involve consumer safety and public interest.
The Court accordingly granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the trademarks, copyright and packaging of MEFTAL-SPAS, and allowed the suit filed by Blue Cross Laboratories.
In the directions, the Bench noted, “Each of the Defendants shall pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) as costs to the Plaintiff within a period of 8 weeks from today. iii. In the event the Defendants do not pay the costs within a period of 8 weeks from today, then the said sum will be payable with interest at the rate of 8% per annum”.
Cause Title: Blue Cross Laboratories Private Limited v. Alto Healthcare Private Limited & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:13429)
Appearances:
Plaintiff: Siddhant Gupta a/w. Prachi Shah, Apeksha Mehta and Rashi Thakur i/b. Vinod A. Bhagat, Advocates.
Defendants: None appeared.