CHENNAI: Kamagra , Silagra, Edegra, Penegra, Zenegra… the complete list can fill reams. With more than 124 pharmaceuticals vying for their share of the pie in the multi-crore Indian viagra industry, the competition is often cutthroat. Apart from similar marketing and advertising strategy, the desi viagras also have names in common, leading to disputes. One such dispute has landed before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB).

Settling a trademark dispute between two major desi viagra players on Wednesday, the IPAB disallowed them from using two trademarks. While Vee Excel Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd, Delhi was restrained from using the name Vega Asia, HAB Pharmaceuticals and Research Ltd, Thane was directed to drop the trademark Vegah Tablets.

Both the companies were selling sildenafil citrate tablets used to treat erectile dysfunction and had filed cross-suits against each other. HAB claimed it started using the trademarks Vega, Vegah, Veega, Vigora etc in 2001 and the trademark Vega Asia used by Vee was similar to its. Vee, however, claimed it adopted and started using Vega and its formative trademarks in 2000 and over a period of time, its trademark Vega Asia and design of rocket had become its distinguishing features. It said the trademark Vegah used by HAB was similar to its trademark and should be removed.

On perusal of the documents, the board found that HAB had been using the trademark Vega since 2001 while Vee started using the trademark Vega Asia in 2002. "The trademarks are deceptively similar and are likely to cause confusion and deception. In such a case the prior user has the better right. The mark which is in subsequent use shall not remain on the register," it said.

It also said that as only the trademark Vega was used by HAB in 2001 and not Vegah, it has to discontinue the second trademark. Citing three pervious judgments on trademarks, the board said a registration did not confer any new right to the trademark but merely afforded protection for the mark. Also, advertisement in newspaper did not constitute proof of use of the trademark and in the absence of an admission, facts could be proved by means of documentary evidence, it said.

According to the documents submitted in the board, the annual turnover of Vee was Rs.1,25,65,498 in the year 2004-05 while HAB had sold tablets worth Rs 700 lakh in the year 2007-08.

