Milmet Oftho Industries v. Allergen Inc (2004) 12 SCC 624:

FACTS:

The respondent was using the TM ‘OCUFLOX’ globally and their TM application in India was pending: Milmet Oftho was a pharma company selling eye/nasal drop by the name ‘OCUFLOX’ in India, and their TM application in India was also pending: The respondent filed a suit for injunction against the passing off of their product:

ISSUE:

Is there infringement?:

HELD:

High Court: the product of the defendant was not sold in India and hence they were not entitled to an injunction- the plaintifff company sold the eye drop in Indian market: Appeal DV HC: Decision reversed – the respondents were the first to enter the market and hence they were entitled to injunction: Supreme Court: followed guidelines laid down in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. – in case of medical products, stricter standards are needed cause the potential harm in case of confusion is far more dire than in a case of normal products: If a mark in respect of a drug is associated with the Respondents worldwide it would lead to an anomalous situation if an identical mark in respect of a similar drug is allowed to be sold in India: In the present case, it was irrelevant that the mark was not used in India- it was enough that the defendant was the first to enter the market globally:

Video Summary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tazZvmBxCjg&list=PL1DBVyVi7EaCojbQa5_XKBVJqA1y1REh&index=4