Despite phonetic similarity between Dr. Reddy’s “NISE” pharmaceutical trademark and “NICE” neonatal medical equipment mark, the Madras High Court has found no likelihood of confusion due to distinct goods, consumers and trade channels. The Court concluded that although “NISE” and “NICE” sound alike, consumers are unlikely to assume a common commercial origin because the respondent’s specialized neonatal medical equipment and the appellant’s pharmaceutical products cater to distinct markets and purchasers.
The Court held that medicines marketed under the “NISE” mark and neonatal intensive care equipment sold under the “NICE” mark belong to different commercial fields. Their purpose, function and usage are materially different despite both relating to the healthcare sector. Unlike ordinary retail consumers purchasing medicines, neonatal medical equipment is generally procured by hospitals, doctors, healthcare institutions and technical procurement teams after detailed evaluation. Such purchasers are expected to exercise a higher degree of care, significantly reducing the likelihood of mistaken association.
The Court said that reputation in one segment does not automatically extend to another. While Dr. Reddy’s established substantial goodwill in the “NISE” trademark for pharmaceutical products, the Court found no evidence that the mark had acquired such a broad reputation that consumers would assume a connection with specialized medical equipment sold under “NICE”. The Court also accepted the respondent’s explanation that “NICE” was adopted in connection with its neonatal intensive care equipment business. Mere phonetic resemblance was held insufficient to infer bad-faith adoption or an intention to ride upon the appellant’s reputation.
Briefly, Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited challenged an order of the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks which had rejected its opposition to the registration of the device mark “NICE” by Nice Neotech Medical Systems Pvt Ltd. Dr. Reddy’s claimed prior and extensive use of the trademark “NISE” since 1995 for pharmaceutical products and argued that “NICE” was deceptively similar both phonetically and visually. It contended that registration of “NICE” for medical equipment and apparatus in Class 10 would cause confusion and dilute the goodwill attached to its registered “NISE” mark.
The second respondent maintained that “NICE” had been honestly adopted in connection with its neonatal intensive care equipment business, that it stands for “Neonatal Intensive Care Equipment”, and that its products consist of specialized neonatal medical devices sold through institutional procurement channels. It further argued that pharmaceutical products and neonatal medical equipment are fundamentally different goods serving different purchasers through different trade channels.
A Single Judge Bench of Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete observed that the competing marks “NISE” and “NICE” are phonetically similar, since both are four-letter words and differ only by the substitution of the letter “S” with “C”. The Court held that the stylized device representation of the respondent’s mark did not eliminate similarity in pronunciation. However, it emphasized that phonetic similarity alone cannot decide a trademark dispute under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act.
The Court noted that the appellant’s products are medicines used for pain and inflammatory conditions, whereas the respondent manufactures neonatal and infant-care equipment such as incubators, ventilators, radiant warmers and phototherapy units. Although both operate within the broader healthcare sector, the goods are materially different in nature, purpose, function and usage. Mere connection with healthcare was held insufficient to establish a commercial relationship capable of causing confusion.
Also read Calcutta High Court Restrains Sabeer Bhatia from Circulating Allegedly Defamatory Adani Video
The Court further observed that the purchaser groups are entirely different. Pharmaceutical products are generally obtained by patients and the public through pharmacies, often on prescription. In contrast, neonatal medical equipment is procured by hospitals, healthcare institutions, doctors, biomedical engineers and specialized procurement teams after careful evaluation of technical specifications and performance standards. Such purchasers exercise a much higher degree of care, reducing the possibility of confusion.
The Court also found that Dr. Reddy’s had established reputation and goodwill in the “NISE” mark for pharmaceutical products, but had not shown that the mark had attained the status of a well-known trademark across unrelated product categories. The evidence was insufficient to prove that use of “NICE” would unfairly exploit or harm the reputation of “NISE”.
Regarding dishonest adoption, the Court held that phonetic similarity by itself does not justify an inference of bad faith. The respondent’s incorporation records, business activities and product materials supported its explanation that the mark “NICE” was independently adopted in connection with neonatal intensive care equipment.
