Relief to Max Healthcare: HC Issues Injunction Against Telangana Hospital Chain Over Maxi Cure Trademark

Max Healthcare Institute Limited (Max), a chain of hospitals, filed a suit against Maxi Cure Hospitals (Defendants) seeking a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from using the infringing marks/names MAXI CURE HOSPITALS, MAXI CURE PHARMACY and the domain name www.maxicurehospitals.com.

Max argued that it is one of the pioneers in the healthcare industry and has a strong reputation. It has been granted registrations for the mark MAX and its variants dating back to 2001. Max has also taken repeated actions against misuse of the mark 'MAX'.

Max alleged that the Defendants are operating a hospital/healthcare center under the name/mark Maxi Cure Hospitals at two locations in Telangana. Max argued that the Defendants' mark is deceptively similar to its mark MAX and that the Defendants are likely to cause confusion among consumers.

The Defendants, Maxi Cure argued that their mark Maxi Cure is not deceptively similar to Max's mark MAX. They also argued that they have been using the mark Maxi Cure for several years and that they have built a goodwill in their mark.

The Court held that Max has made out a prima facie case for the grant of interim injunction. The Court also found that the balance of convenience lies in favour of Max and that irreparable injury would be caused to Max if the interim injunction is not granted. It osberved;

"Having perused the plaint, the documents and the previous orders passed by courts protecting Plaintiff’s right, prima facie this Court is of the view that in the field of healthcare and pharmacy, diagnostics etc. confusion has to be avoided. In the present case, in the Defendants’ mark/name MAXI CURE the essential feature and the prominent feature is the mark/name MAX, which is the registered trademark of the Plaintiff. The same would be severely impinging upon the Plaintiff’s statutory and common law rights as also adversely affect the larger interest of the patient community. In view thereof, Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for the grant of interim injunction. The balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiff and irreparable injury would be caused to the Plaintiff if the interim injunction is not granted."

Accordingly, the Court restrained the Defendants and anyone acting for or on their behalf from using the mark/name MAXI CURE or any other name, which consists of Max's mark/name MAX for hospital or healthcare services as also any cognate/allied goods or services. However, the Court directed that the present injunction shall come into effect only from 1st February, 2024, to ensure that there is no inconvenience to patients and others who may be obtaining the Defendants' services.

The Court also directed Maxi Cure not to open any fresh heath centre/hospital or undertake any expansion under the infringing mark/name during the interregnum. It noted;

"Accordingly, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Defendants and anyone acting for or on their behalf are restrained from using the mark/name MAXI CURE or any other name, which consists of the Plaintiff’s mark/name MAX for hospital or healthcare services as also any cognate/allied goods or services. However, since the Defendants are using the infringing mark/ name for a hospital, in order to ensure that there is no inconvenience to patients and others who may be obtaining the Defendant’s services, it is directed that the present injunction shall come into effect only from 1st February, 2024. During the interregnum, the Defendants shall not open any fresh heath centre/ hospital or undertake any expansion under the infringing mark/ name."

To view original order, click on the link below: