CCP fines 7 Companies in COLCOREX Trademark Case

The Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) has imposed total fines of Rs5.5 million on seven veterinary medicine manufacturers for using brand names and product packaging that were identical or deceptively similar to the registered trademark "COLCOREX." The Commission ruled that the practice breached Section 10 of the Competition Act, 2010, which prohibits deceptive marketing.

The case originated from a complaint filed by M/s Shahujee Herbal Pharma, which stated it has marketed veterinary herbal medicines under the COLCOREX brand since 1999 and officially secured trademark registration with the Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan (IPO) in 2017.

According to the complaint, multiple companies later introduced comparable products using 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, allegedly creating confusion among buyers.

Following its investigation, the CCP determined that the disputed brands either copied the registered trademark entirely or made only slight alterations through modified spellings, prefixes or suffixes. It also found that several companies replicated similar colour combinations, typography, slogans and packaging designs, resulting in an overall appearance likely to mislead an ordinary consumer into believing the products were associated with or produced by Shahujee Herbal Pharma.

The Commission imposed Rs1 million fines each on M/s Atzan Natural Products, M/s Muslim Herbal and Nutraceuticals, M/s S-Asia Oriental Pharma and M/s Izfaar Nutraceuticals Industries.

Meanwhile, M/s HerBBeck Nutraceuticals, M/s Vital Mark Laboratories (Pvt.) Limited and M/s Hi-Vet Nutraceuticals Pharma were each fined Rs500,000.

Proceedings against an eighth company, M/s Blessco International, were dismissed after the Commission concluded there was insufficient evidence linking it to the production or sale of the disputed products.

The CCP also rejected the companies' claim that registration with the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (DRAP) protected them from enforcement, ruling that DRAP approval neither permits the use of another company's registered trademark nor limits the Commission's authority over deceptive marketing cases.

It further clarified that DRAP, the Intellectual Property Organization (IPO) and the CCP operate under separate legal frameworks, meaning ongoing proceedings before DRAP, the courts or the Intellectual Property Tribunal do not prevent the Commission from pursuing violations under the Competition Act.

Referring to Supreme Court rulings, the CCP stated that merely adding prefixes or suffixes, changing a single letter or making minor packaging modifications does not establish a legally separate trademark when the overall commercial impression remains deceptively similar. Such practices, it ruled, constitute fraudulent use under Section 10(2)(d) of the Competition Act.

The Commission has ordered all respondent companies to immediately stop using the disputed trademarks, update all related promotional and marketing material across every platform, and submit compliance reports within 30 days. Failure to comply will result in an additional penalty of Rs100,000 per day until compliance is achieved.