To, The Registrar of Trademark, Trademark Registry, CHENNAI Sub: Reply to Examination Report Dated on: 13/01/2017 12:42:28 Ref: Application Number-3338631 Sir, With reference to the above application, the point wise reply is as under: Reply attached seperately N.R.SRINATH Attorney 
BEFORE THE PROCEEDING OF REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS, CHENNAI TRADE MARK APPLICATION No. 3338631 IN CLASS 5 IN THE MATTER OF REPLY TO EXAMINATION REPORT
REPLY TO OBJECTIONS IN EXAMINATION REPORT Without Prejudice to the applicant’s right of opportunity of being heard under Sec 128 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with rule 111 of Trade Mark Rules, 2002, it is submitted as follows: 1) The, Proprietor of CAVEN HEALTHCARE., applied for trademark CH caven HEALTH CARE bearing application number 3338631 and started using it since 15/08/2015 in Class 5. The trademark is used in respect of goods ‘ MEDICINAL AND PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS ’. Since ‘ CH caven HEALTH CARE ’ mark is a DEVICE mark, it is distinctive one. The adoption of the said trade mark is honest and bonafide one. C oined using more than One Chemical Combination which is used for manufacturing of the drug. 2) The cited mark CH bearing application number 254334 in class 5 applied by a DUPHAR - INTERFRAN LTD.,, having
office at F/5, SHIV-SAGAR ESTATE, DR. ANNIE BESANT ROAD, BOMBAY 18 [WB] is not deceptively similar. The cited trademark search reults are different from that of ours in both structure and phonetically. . The cited mark is entirely different from our mark visually, phonetically and structurally. Our Mark is highly distinguishable from this cited mark. 3) The cited mark CAVIM bearing application number 1561619 in class 5 applied by a GUFIC BIOSCIENCES LTD., having office at SUBHASH ROAD A, GUFIC HOUSE, VILE PARLE (EAST) MUMBAI-400057 is not deceptively similar. The cited t rademark search reults are different from that of ours in both structure and phonetically. . The cited mark is entirely different from our mark visually, phonetically and structurally. Our Mark is highly distinguishable from this cited mark.
4) The trade mark has been depicted in a distinctive manner. The applied mark is written in unique font style and size in overall unique look. The overall concept of the trademarks on record and that of the Applicant’s mark is completely different/ dissimilar and consumers can easily differentiate between them. We submit that no identical or similar and conflict ing mark has been cited in the report. 5) Generally the trademark registry and the judiciary used to treat a Mark of a Pharmaceutical Company differently from those of other marks. It is common practice to name medicinal or pharmaceutical products after their generic ingredients. However, such marks are usually considered weak or non-distinctive, since they can easily be traced back to their respective ingredients. Such marks also run the risk of being adopted by other manufacturers whose medicines contain the same generic ingredient. However,
adopting the name of a generic drug for a trademark is one thing – ‘inventing’ the trademark based on the name of a generic drug is another thing entirely. In B al Pharma Ltd v Wockhardt Limited, which involved a dispute between the marks AZIWOK and AZIWIN, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court accepted the defendant’s argument that: the prefix ‘Azi-’ in the rival marks was an abbreviation of the generic drug Azithromycin; and various brands of Azithromycin were marketed by different companies using the common prefix ‘Azi’. However, although the court agreed that the prefix ‘Azi-’ was common to the trade, it held that the uncommon elements ‘-wok’ and ‘-win’ in the rival marks were completely different and refused the defendant’s injunction. 6) I submit that In A pex Laboratories Limited v Zuventus Health Care Limited (2006 (33) PTC 492 (MAD)), involving the
marks ZINCOVIT and ZINCONIA, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court similarly held that both marks contained the prefix ‘Zinc-’, which was common to the trade, and that the plaintiff could not claim ownership over the word. The court thus refused the plaintiff’s injunction. So our mark ‘MECOVEN’ and ‘MECOGEN, MECOVON, MECOBEN, COVEN+, MECOVON, AND MECOVIN’ is not similar to each other. 7) I submit that our trademark is not prohibited under the Trade Mark Act, 1999. The Trade Mark is not identical with the cited marks. Further its general trademark practice to coin names using One or More chemical combination with either suffix or prefix along with company name. There is no chance of existence of any type of confusion for the general public. T he Mark in question is not deceptively similar to the registered trademarks or the marks reflection in the examination report. Mark is distinctive by virtue of constant use and is capable of distinguishing goods.
8) I respectfully submit that my client will submit sales invoice and other documents including affidavit
REQUESTED by CHENNAI Trademark Registry prove that we have bonafide usage over the above mentioned Trademark ‘ CH caven HEALTH CARE ’. 9) Under the above said circumstances, it is, therefore, prayed that the learned Registrar may be pleased to waive the objections in the Examination Report and to proceed to advertise the Application No. 3 338631 C H caven HEALTH CARE in class 5 in the Trade marks Journal under Sec.20 of the said Act and thus render justice. DIGITALLY SIGNED BY N.R.SRINATH ADVOCATE To, The Registrar of Trade Marks Office of the Trade marks Registry CHENNAI .