SpicyIP Tidbit: ‘Sugar free’ hassles

Cadila HealthCare has filed a suit against Dabur India for the use of its trademark “Sugar Free” in the marketing of Dabur’s Sugar Free Chyawanprakash and has sought damages to the tune of Rs. 25 lakh.

Justice Ahmed at Delhi, has issued a notice to Dabur on Cadila’s suit to restrain the former from using the ‘Sugar Free’ trademark or any other mark that could seek to deceive or confuse the public as under Section 9 (2) (a) of the Indian Trademark Act, 1999.

At least it’s pretty obvious that the relations between the two companies definitely have some Cheeni Kum!

The full article can be accessed here.

One comment.

  1. Avatarmonica

    While I haven’t read the order, it is surprising to note that the provisions of Section 9(2)(a) has been relied upon. The essence of Section 9(2)(a) is that the mark per se should be of such nature as to deceive the public or cause confusion. For example, SHOE used in relation with shoes. Reliance on Section 9(2)(a) suggests that the mark SUGAR FREE is not capable of protection.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.