Business dealing in dissimilar goods can use trademark in its name

In Cipla Limited v Cipla Industries Pvt Ltd, the full bench of Bombay High Court recently held that using a registered trademark only as a corporate or trading name or style in respect of dissimilar goods does not amount to infringement and does not entitle a plaintiff to an injunction.

Cipla (the plaintiff) owned the trademark Cipla as registered under class 5 whereas Cipla Industries (the defendant) had registered the trademark Cipla Plast under class 21. While the plaintiff manufactures pharmaceutical products, the defendant is in the business of household articles. The plaintiff filed suit for trademark infringement and passing off before Bombay High Court, claiming that the defendant had violated its rights by using Cipla as part of its corporate or trade name.

The single judge, differing with the view of a division bench in Raymond Limited v Raymond Phamaceuticals Pvt Ltd, referred the matter to the chief justice for determination by a full bench.

The dispute digest is compiled by Bhasin & Co, Advocates, a corporate law firm based in New Delhi. The authors can be contacted at lbhasin@bhasinco.in or lbhasin@gmail.com. Readers should not act on the basis of this information without seeking professional legal advice.