ISLAMABAD: The Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) has imposed combined penalties of Rs5.5 million on seven veterinary medicine manufacturers for using brand names and packaging identical or deceptively similar to the registered trademark “COLCOREX”, in violation of Section 10 of the Competition Act, 2010.
The case arose from a complaint by M/s Shahujee Herbal Pharma, which said it had marketed veterinary herbal medicine under the COLCOREX brand since 1999. The trademark was registered with the Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan (IPO) in 2017.
According to the complainant, several manufacturers marketed similar veterinary products under names including COLCOREX FORTE, TM-CALCOREX, CALCOREX-C, CALCOJEX, COLCOREX-M, CALCOREX-T, COLCOREX-V, GOLD COLCOREX, AR CALCOREX, SUPER COLCOREX, COLCORX LIQUID and HI-CALCOREX.
The Commission found that the disputed brands reproduced the registered trademark either in full or with only minor spelling changes, prefixes or suffixes. In several cases, respondents also adopted similar colour schemes, typography, taglines and packaging, creating an overall impression capable of misleading an “unwary and ordinary purchaser” into believing the products originated from, or were associated with, the complainant.
The Commission imposed penalties of Rs1 million each on M/s Atzan Natural Products, M/s Muslim Herbal and Nutraceuticals, M/s S-Asia Oriental Pharma and M/s Izfaar Nutraceuticals Industries, while Rs500,000 each was imposed on M/s HerBBeck Nutraceuticals, M/s Vital Mark Laboratories (Pvt.) Limited and M/s Hi-Vet Nutraceuticals Pharma. Proceedings against M/s Blessco International were dropped after the Commission found insufficient evidence linking the company to the manufacture or sale of the impugned product.
The Commission held that product enlistment by the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (DRAP) neither authorises the use of another undertaking’s registered trademark nor ousts CCP’s jurisdiction. It observed that DRAP, IPO and CCP exercise distinct statutory mandates, and that parallel proceedings before DRAP, the courts or the Intellectual Property Tribunal do not prevent the Commission from examining deceptive marketing under the Competition Act.
Relying on Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Commission held that adding prefixes or suffixes, altering a single letter or making minor packaging changes does not create a distinct trademark where the overall commercial impression remains deceptively similar, amounting to fraudulent use under Section 10(2)(d) of the Competition Act.
The Commission directed the respondents to cease using the impugned trademarks, modify all related promotional material across all media platforms, and submit compliance reports within 30 days. Failure to comply will result in an additional penalty of Rs100,000 for each day of non-compliance.
