The High Court delivered a decisive ruling this week in a protracted pharmaceutical trademark battle, siding with Indian manufacturer Syncom Formulations (India) Limited and halting the sale of a controversial painkiller by City Pharmacy.
Justice Jaiteh found that Alaa Mohajer, operating under City Pharmacy, had engaged in “passing off” products, misleading Gambian consumers into believing that the company’s tablets were connected to Syncom’s established brand, DYCLOSA 50.
The case centered on the product “DICLOCI,” which Syncom alleged was deliberately packaged to mimic DYCLOSA 50, sharing nearly identical color, shape, size, and labeling. Syncom contended that Mohajer attempted to register the DICLOCI trademark at the Registrar General’s office despite a prior judgment in India prohibiting the manufacturer, Sangeeta Pharma, from producing or selling the same product.
In court, Mohajer denied wrongdoing, arguing that DICLOCI differed sufficiently from DYCLOSA 50 and that the product had been lawfully imported with the approval of the Medicines Control Agency of The Gambia. He also presented a Power of Attorney from Sangeeta Pharma authorizing him to register brands in the country.
Justice Jaiteh, however, was persuaded by the evidence presented by Syncom and its local agent, Kairaba Pharmaceuticals. Samples of both products were compared, and testimony indicated that most Gambian consumers could be misled into believing DICLOCI was associated with Syncom.
The ruling imposes strict measures on City Pharmacy and the Registrar General. Mohajer and his company are permanently barred from selling DICLOCI or any painkillers packaged to resemble DYCLOSA 50. The court ordered the delivery or destruction of all DICLOCI stock and prohibited the registration of the trademark without Syncom’s consent.
In addition, Justice Jaiteh allowed Syncom to pursue an inquiry into damages or an accounting of profits to determine the financial loss caused by the infringement. Legal costs were also awarded to the Indian manufacturer.
The judgment marks a significant precedent in The Gambia, reinforcing protections for international pharmaceutical trademarks and setting a clear standard against attempts to exploit brand recognition through imitation.
Comments are closed.