Bombay High Court Temporarily Restrains Use of 'PIL-LINCTUS', Finds Similarity With 'GRILINCTUS'

The Bombay High Court on 15 June granted an interim injunction restraining Psychotropics India Limited from using the mark 'PIL-LINCTUS' for its cough syrup, holding it to be deceptively similar to the registered mark 'GRILINCTUS' owned by Laboratoires Griffon Private Limited.

Justice Arif S. Doctor held that the competing marks were aurally, phonetically and structurally similar, with the suffix “LINCTUS” dominating the overall impression of both. The Court observed:

“when pronounced, it is the suffix 'LINCTUS' that dominates and virtually eclipses the respective prefixes, namely 'GRI' and 'PIL'.”

The suit was instituted by Laboratoires Griffon in August 2021, alleging that Psychotropics' use of 'PIL-LINCTUS' on a competing cough syrup amounted to infringement and passing off, given its long-standing registration of 'GRILINCTUS' since 1972.

Psychotropics contended that “PIL” was an acronym of its corporate name, Psychotropics India Limited, and functioned as a house mark, while “LINCTUS” was a generic pharmaceutical term for cough preparations incapable of monopoly.

The Court rejected the defence, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Cadila Health Care v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals, which prescribes a stricter standard for medicinal trademarks.

It noted that medicines are often ordered over telephone and dispensed without prescriptions, and held that the hyphen in 'PIL-LINCTUS' did not eliminate the likelihood of confusion. Quoting Cadila, the Bench observed:

“Drugs are poisons, not sweets. Confusion between medicinal products may, therefore, be life threatening, not merely inconvenient.”

The Bench also recorded that Psychotropics had earlier applied for registration of 'PIL-LINCTUS' in 2018, which was opposed and abandoned, and had similarly sought registration of 'BRILINCTUS' in 2009, which was also rejected following opposition by Griffon. It further noted inconsistent pleas regarding the date of first use of the mark and the absence of credible evidence of actual market use.

Finally, it held that the balance of convenience favoured Griffon, given its long-standing registration and continuous use of 'GRILINCTUS' since 1973, supported by invoices from 1975 and substantial promotional material.

Accordingly, the High Court restrained Psychotropics from infringing the mark or passing off its products as those of the plaintiff.