Competition Commission Cracks Down On Deceptive Veterinary Product Branding
ISLAMABAD, July 28: The Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) has imposed total penalties of Rs5.5 million on seven veterinary medicine manufacturers for using brand names and packaging that were identical or deceptively similar to the registered trademark “COLCOREX”.
The action was taken under Section 10 of the Competition Act, 2010, following a complaint by M/s Shahujee Herbal Pharma. The complainant said it had been marketing its veterinary herbal medicine under the COLCOREX brand since 1999 and had registered the trademark with the Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan (IPO) in 2017.
CCP Finds Multiple Copycat Brands
According to the Commission, several manufacturers were selling similar veterinary products under names such as 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 CCP found that the disputed brands either reproduced the registered trademark in full or introduced only minor spelling changes, prefixes or suffixes. In a number of cases, the respondents also adopted similar colour schemes, typography, taglines and packaging. This, the Commission held, was capable of misleading an ordinary purchaser into believing the products originated from or were associated with the complainant.
Penalties Imposed On Seven Companies
Rs1 million each: M/s Atzan Natural Products, M/s Muslim Herbal and Nutraceuticals, M/s S-Asia Oriental Pharma and M/s Izfaar Nutraceuticals Industries.
Rs500,000 each: 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.
Companies Ordered To End Trademark Misuse
The CCP clarified that product enlistment by the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (DRAP) does not authorise the use of another undertaking’s registered trademark, nor does it oust the Commission’s jurisdiction. It noted that DRAP, IPO and CCP perform distinct statutory functions, and parallel proceedings before DRAP, the courts or the Intellectual Property Tribunal do not prevent the Commission from examining deceptive marketing practices under the Competition Act.
Relying on Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Commission held that adding prefixes or suffixes, changing a single letter, or making minor packaging alterations does not create a distinct trademark when the overall commercial impression remains deceptively similar. Such conduct amounts to fraudulent use under Section 10(2)(d) of the Competition Act.
Compliance Deadline And Daily Fine
The respondents have been directed to stop using the impugned trademarks, modify all related promotional material across media platforms, and submit compliance reports within 30 days. Non-compliance will attract an additional penalty of Rs100,000 for each day of default.