The Western Cape High Court has interdicted Cipla Medpro (Pty) Ltd from passing off its pharmaceutical products as if they are those of companies Adcock Ingram Limited, Adcock Ingram Healthcare (Pty) Ltd and Zambon S.P.A.
The court said Cipla Medpro’s usage of its trade mark FURIZOME, is confusing and deceptively similar to Adcock Ingram Limited’s trade mark of URIZONE.
The judgment was handed down electronically by the Western Cape High Court in Cape Town on Thursday.
URIZONE vs FURIZOME
Judge James Lekhuleni delivered the judgment, and the case was heard before him on February 12 2025.
The applicants in the matter were Adcock Ingram Limited, Adcock Ingram Healthcare (Pty) Ltd and Zambon S.P.A.
The respondent in the matter was Cipla Medpro (Pty) Ltd.
“The respondent is interdicted and restrained in terms of s 34(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993 from infringing the third applicant’s trade mark registration number 1995/00309 URIZONE in class 5 by using in relation to the pharmaceutical product, the trade name FURIZOME or any other trade mark so nearly resembling the third applicant’s URIZONE trade mark so as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion,” said Lekhuleni.
“Thy are interdicted and restrained from passing off its pharmaceutical products as those of the applicants or associated with the pharmaceutical products of the applicants by using in any manner or form the trademark FURIZOME or any confusingly similar trademark or name.
Unlawful competition
“The respondent is interdicted and restrained from unlawfully competing with the applicants by using in any manner or form the trademark FURIZOME or any confusingly similar trademark,” said Lekhuleni.
According to Lekhuleni’s judgement, an application was brought by the applicants seeking an interdict against Cipla Medpro from infringing Zambon’s registered trademark.
Moreover, the applicants sought an order that Cipla Medpro be interdicted and restrained from passing off its pharmaceutical products as those of the applicants.
“The applicants and the respondent are competitors within the pharmaceutical industry. And the applicants allege that the respondent’s use of the trade mark FURIZOME, associated with its broad-spectrum antibiotics containing the active ingredient Fosfomycin for treating urinary tract infections, is confusingly and or deceptively similar to the applicants’ URIZONE trade mark.
Trademark confusing to consumers
“Accordingly, the applicants seek an order that the respondent be interdicted and restrained from unlawfully competing with them by using the trademark FURIZOME or any confusingly similar trademark. This court is called upon to determine whether URIZONE and FURIZOME trade marks are confusingly or deceptively similar,” said Lekhuleni.
In delivering his judgement, Lekhuleni said distinctive and distinguishable trade mark play a crucial role in the competitive landscape of pharmaceutical products.
“What I also find concerning is the fact that the respondent selected this particular name. This despite having another name, completely different in every respect, that was approved by SAHPRA.
Visually, aurally and conceptually similar
“The only inference to be drawn is that the respondent wanted to take advantage of the reputation and goodwill of the applicants’ URIZONE. And this cannot be countenanced.
“Accordingly, this court finds that the two trademarks URIZONE and FURIZOME are visually, aurally and conceptually similar. And that there exists a likelihood of confusion or deception among consumers,” said Lekhuleni.
Lekhuleni ruled in favour of the applicants, granting them their interdict prayer.
He also ordered that Cipla Medpro pay the legal costs of the applicants.
