Two companies used “CORONA” in pharmaceuticals — yet there was no infringement, because the marks reached different buyers through different channels. The Gujarat High Court’s reminder: confusion depends on who is buying.
The factors that matter
The court reaffirmed that “trade channels, class of purchasers, the extent of reputation of the parties and all the other relevant factors play a crucial role” in deciding infringement. Similarity of the words is only the start — the commercial context decides likelihood of confusion.
The case: Corona Remedies v. USV
- Corona Remedies Pvt. Ltd. held a registered mark “CORONA HC-NIC REMEDIES” for pharmaceutical preparations, claiming reputation since 2000.
- USV Ltd., also in pharmaceuticals, set up a sales division under the name “Corona” and advertised it — prompting the infringement suit.
- USV’s defence: “Corona” is a common, generic term (used by ~50 companies), and the word would appear only on promotional brochures for doctors — not on the medicines themselves — targeting qualified medical professionals, not ordinary consumers.
What the court held
The court found the class of purchasers and trade channels substantially different:
- USV’s brochures bearing “CORONA” were “supplied principally to the doctors,” not to end-consumers; and
- the marks themselves differed visually.
With different buyers, different channels and visually distinct marks, there was no confusion-inducing similarity — and the appeal was dismissed.
The takeaways
- Confusion is buyer-specific. Sophisticated buyers (here, doctors) in a distinct channel are far less likely to be confused than ordinary shoppers.
- Common words are weak. A term used by many (like “Corona”) gets thin protection.
- Where the mark appears matters. Use confined to professional promotional material is different from use on the product reaching consumers. (Compare our note on target customers and infringement.)
Note, though, that pharma marks generally attract stricter scrutiny where consumer safety is engaged — see similar pharmaceutical trademarks. Here, the professional-only channel was decisive.
Frequently asked questions
Does the class of purchasers affect trademark infringement? Yes. The likely buyers and trade channels are central — sophisticated buyers in a distinct channel are less likely to be confused.
Why did the “CORONA” pharmaceutical claim fail? Because USV’s use was confined to brochures for doctors (not on medicines), the buyers and channels differed, and the marks were visually distinct.
Are common words strongly protected as trademarks? No. A term used by many businesses (like “Corona”) receives limited protection.
Aren’t pharmaceutical marks judged strictly? Generally yes, where consumer safety is engaged — but here the professional-only channel and distinct marks meant no confusion.
Legislation referred to
- The Trade Marks Act, 1999