Trade marks are not for 'hoarding'

The Supreme Court stated last week that a company cannot claim the right to a trade mark if it registers the name but does not use it for a long time. It would be assumed that the company, by its lethargic conduct, had abandoned its right. In this case, Neon Laboratories Ltd vs Medical Technologies Ltd, two pharma companies were disputing over the trade mark of similar sounding brand names. Medical Technologies argued that its product named Profol for the compound Propofol was being confused with that of Neon’s Rofol. Therefore it filed a suit alleging ‘passing off’. The trial court and the Gujarat High Court passed injunctions in its favour. Therefore, Neon approached Supreme Court. It dismissed the appeal stating that Neon had registered the name in 1992 but started marketing its brand only in 2004, much after the rival company launched its product in the market. The judgment stated that “t he Trade Marks Act does not permit the hoarding of or appropriation without utilisation of a trade mark.”  Neon even allowed or acquiesced in the marketing of the rival product for several years. “The legislative intent is to ordain that an applicant of a trade mark does not have a permanent right by virtue of its application alone,” the court declared and added: “Such a right is lost if it is not exercised within a reasonable time.”