The Bombay High Court has ordered Alto Healthcare and another defendant to pay a cumulative INR1 million (USD10,501) for infringing Blue Cross Laboratories’ registered mark “Meftal-Spas” with the former’s deceptively similar “Mefial-Spas” brand and packaging.
The case involved the name and packaging of Meftal-Spas, a prescription medication to treat muscle spasms and pain, especially menstrual cramps and abdominal pain.
In the Blue Cross Laboratories v Alto Healthcare & Anr. (2026) case, the plaintiff had claimed the defendants were infringing their registered trademark and copyright of the medicine’s name and packaging, respectively. The court heard and ruled on the matter ex parte.
This was because, defendant No. 1, Alto Healthcare, the marketer of the infringing mark and design, responded initially in the court proceedings with a written statement, but did not participate thereafter. Defendant No. 2, the manufacturer of the infringing mark and design, never appeared in court.
The plaintiff said their registered marks Meftal and Meftal-Spas had carved a niche in the pharmaceutical industry.
The marks had been in use since 1981, while the related original works of art were created and used since 1982 and 2004, becoming distinctive products under the plaintiff company. The plaintiff, Blue Cross, discovered the infringing marks in October 2015. The defendants were using the complete mark, only swapping the letter “t” for “i” in the name.
The infringing use comprised the deceptively similar name Mefial-Spas , the artistic work on the packaging, including a geometric design, and its blue-and-red colour scheme.
The plaintiff argued that the defendants were attempting to cash in on Blue Cross’ goodwill in the market by using the infringing mark and design in a mala fide and dishonest manner. Blue Cross relied on the KR Chinna Krishna Chettiar v Shri Ambal & Co (1969), Parle Products v JP and Co, Mysore (1972) and Hiralal Prabhudas v Ganesh Trading Co (1983) to present its case.
In its deliberations, the court said it was clear that the defendants had simply copied the whole mark registered by the plaintiff.
On comparing both marks, it was evident the defendants’ version was similar to the plaintiff’s, having a deceptively similar name, copied the artistic work, the blueandred colour scheme and the trade dress on the packaging.
The court acknowledged the plaintiff had established goodwill, a stark visual similarity between two products existed and the names also had phonetic similarity.
“There exists a likelihood of confusion and deception amongst the rival products, and such confusion is likely to cause consumers to purchase the defendants’ product and thereby cause loss to the plaintiff,” the court said. The defendants’ failure to participate in the proceedings further strengthened the plaintiff’s submissions of dishonest and bad faith use by the defendants, the court added.
The court then ordered both the defendants to pay INR500,000 each, as costs to the plaintiff within eight weeks, and failure to do so will incur interest at 8% per annum.
