Seven Nutraceutical Firms Fined for Deceptively Similar COLCOREX Packaging.

The Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) has imposed combined penalties of Rs5.5 million on seven veterinary medicine manufacturers for using brand names and packaging identical or deceptively similar to the registered trademark “COLCOREX”, in violation of Section 10 of the Competition Act, 2010.

The case arose from a complaint by M/s Shahujee Herbal Pharma, which stated it had marketed veterinary herbal medicine under the COLCOREX brand since 1999, with official trademark registration secured through the Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan (IPO) in 2017.

According to the complainant, several manufacturers marketed similar veterinary products under names including COLCOREX FORTE, TM-CALCOREX, CALCOREX-C, CALCOJEX, COLCOREX-M, CALCOREX-T, COLCOREX-V, GOLD COLCOREX, AR CALCOREX, SUPER COLCOREX, COLCORX LIQUID, and HI-CALCOREX.

Findings of Deceptive Marketing

The Commission found that the disputed brands reproduced the registered trademark either in full or with minor spelling alterations, prefixes, or suffixes. In several instances, respondents adopted matching colour schemes, typography, taglines, and overall packaging.

This created a general commercial impression capable of misleading an “unwary and ordinary purchaser” into believing the products originated from, or were associated with, M/s Shahujee Herbal Pharma.

Penalties Imposed

• Rs1,000,000 Fine 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 Fine Each: M/s HerBBeck Nutraceuticals, M/s Vital Mark Laboratories (Pvt.) Limited, and M/s Hi-Vet Nutraceuticals Pharma.
• Proceedings Dropped: M/s Blessco International was cleared after the Commission found insufficient evidence linking the firm to the manufacture or sale of the impugned product.

Legal Jurisprudence and Regulatory Jurisdiction

The Commission held that product enlistment by the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (DRAP) neither authorises the use of another undertaking’s registered trademark nor ousts CCP’s statutory jurisdiction. DRAP, IPO, and CCP exercise distinct regulatory mandates, and parallel proceedings before DRAP, courts, or Intellectual Property Tribunals do not prevent the CCP from examining deceptive marketing practices.

Relying on Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Commission ruled that adding prefixes or suffixes, altering a single letter, or making minor packaging adjustments does not establish a distinct trademark when the overall commercial impression remains deceptively similar, amounting to fraudulent use under Section 10(2)(d) of the Competition Act.

The CCP directed the respondents to immediately cease using the impugned trademarks, modify all related promotional material across digital and print media, and submit compliance reports within 30 days. Non-compliance will trigger an additional penalty of Rs100,000 per day.