Case Law
Neon Laboratories v. Medical Technologies — Prior Use Trademark Case
Ahmedabad, Gujarat
Citation & Court
Neon Laboratories Ltd. v. Medical Technologies Ltd. & Others, Supreme Court of India, decided 5 October 2015. Civil Appeal No. 1018 of 2006.
The Issue
The parties disputed ROFOL and PROFOL for pharmaceutical products. ROFOL had an earlier application but a long period without market use. The PROFOL side relied on earlier trading and goodwill.
The Rule in Simple Language
The Court allowed the interim injunction protecting PROFOL to continue on the prima facie evidence of first-market use. A filing date and actual trading history answer different questions.
Section 34 protects qualifying continuous prior use. The continuous use must begin before the earlier of the registered proprietor's or predecessor's first use and the relevant registration date. The Court left the detailed competing-date and legal issues for trial.
Evidence to Prepare
• Dated invoices and product records showing the mark used in trade.
• A complete timeline of applications, registrations and first sales for both sides.
• Documents establishing continuity of use and any transfer or succession to the business.
Important Limit
This was a temporary-injunction decision. It does not promise that every later applicant with earlier sales defeats an earlier registration. Check Section 34's exact conditions, the evidence and the procedural stage.
Original Judgment & Relevant Paragraphs
Read the original Supreme Court judgment. Paragraphs 5–6 record the dates, paragraph 7 sets out Section 34, and paragraphs 9–11 explain the interim reasoning and limits. Read alongside Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Reviewed 8 October 2026.
Use our case-law library to compare other prior-use authorities before preparing submissions.
Neon Laboratories Ltd. v. Medical Technologies Ltd. & Others, Supreme Court of India, decided 5 October 2015. Civil Appeal No. 1018 of 2006.
The Issue
The parties disputed ROFOL and PROFOL for pharmaceutical products. ROFOL had an earlier application but a long period without market use. The PROFOL side relied on earlier trading and goodwill.
The Rule in Simple Language
The Court allowed the interim injunction protecting PROFOL to continue on the prima facie evidence of first-market use. A filing date and actual trading history answer different questions.
Section 34 protects qualifying continuous prior use. The continuous use must begin before the earlier of the registered proprietor's or predecessor's first use and the relevant registration date. The Court left the detailed competing-date and legal issues for trial.
Evidence to Prepare
• Dated invoices and product records showing the mark used in trade.
• A complete timeline of applications, registrations and first sales for both sides.
• Documents establishing continuity of use and any transfer or succession to the business.
Important Limit
This was a temporary-injunction decision. It does not promise that every later applicant with earlier sales defeats an earlier registration. Check Section 34's exact conditions, the evidence and the procedural stage.
Original Judgment & Relevant Paragraphs
Read the original Supreme Court judgment. Paragraphs 5–6 record the dates, paragraph 7 sets out Section 34, and paragraphs 9–11 explain the interim reasoning and limits. Read alongside Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Reviewed 8 October 2026.
Use our case-law library to compare other prior-use authorities before preparing submissions.
Need help with this?
Facing an examination report, a show-cause hearing or an opposition? See our trademark objection reply and opposition service. We are a trademark consultant in Ahmedabad working with businesses across Gujarat.
Facing this exact situation in your own filing?
Send us your examination report, opposition notice, or hearing date — we'll tell you how this applies.