Delhi High Court Injuncts 'HALESAGA' Mark, Finds It Similar To Saga Lifesciences' 'SAGA'

The Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction in favour of Saga Lifesciences Limited, restraining Anaadi Global from using the mark 'HALESAGA / ' or any other mark deceptively similar to 'SAGA' for pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations. 

The court held that the rival mark is prima facie deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion.

Justice Tejas Karia held that the defendants' mark incorporates the plaintiff's mark in its entirety and cannot be distinguished merely by adding a prefix or stylistic elements.

The court observed, “Mere addition of the prefix 'HALE' and a logo in the Impugned Mark is not sufficient to distinguish the goods of Defendant No. 1 bearing the Impugned Mark with those of Plaintiff bearing the Subject Mark. The words 'HALE' and 'SAGA' are separated by an apostrophe in Impugned Mark, which further prominently highlights Subject Mark as part of Impugned Mark"

The court further noted that the structure of the impugned mark highlights the plaintiff's mark, stating, “The words 'HALE' and 'SAGA' are separated by an apostrophe in Impugned Mark, which further prominently highlights Subject Mark as part of Impugned Mark.”

Saga Lifesciences had approached the Court seeking an interim injunction against the use of 'HALESAGA' in relation to pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations, alleging trademark infringement and passing off.

The company submitted that its registered mark 'SAGA', adopted in 1981, had been copied in its entirety with only the addition of the prefix 'HALE'.

It also argued that its export business constitutes valid use of the mark in India under Section 56 of the Trade Marks Act and that the similarity of the marks, goods, and trade channels was likely to cause confusion.

Anaadi Global, on the other hand, contended that its adoption of 'HALESAGA' was honest and conceptualised to convey that maintaining good health is a long-term process and argued that 'SAGA' is a common English word meaning a long story and cannot be monopolised.

The court held that although 'SAGA' is a dictionary word, it is arbitrary in nature when used in relation to pharmaceutical products and is therefore capable of protection.

Finding that the plaintiff had established goodwill and reputation, the court observed that the defendants' adoption of the impugned mark appeared to be an attempt to ride upon that goodwill and was likely to result in loss of revenue and reputation.

It concluded that the case satisfied the test of triple identity, noting, “It is noted that this is a case of triple identity where the Impugned Mark is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's Subject Mark, the product category is identical and the trade channel as also the consumer base is identical"

Accordingly, the court restrained the defendants from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, or dealing in pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations under the mark 'HALESAGA/' or any other mark identical with or deceptively similar to 'SAGA' during the pendency of the suit.