Indexed As: CIBA-Geigy Canada Ltd. v. Apotex Inc. Supreme Court of Canada. La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ. October 29, 1992. Summary: CIBA-Geigy manufactured metoprolol (a prescription hypertension medication) under a licence from a Swedish company. CIBA-Geigy sold its tablets in two sizes, a 50 mg. oblong Ciba-Geigy Canada Ltd. v. Apotex Inc., 1992 CanLII 33 (SCC), [1992] 3 SCR 120. FACTS: - Ciba sold Lopressor (a 50mg oblong pink & 100mg blue tablet); Apotex sold generic `Lopressor` (same 'get up') - Novopharm sold the generic `Lopressor` with the same `getup`. ISSUE: Triple P B.V. Website. Get a D&B Hoovers Free Trial. Overview Company Description: Triple P -- for people, performance, and partnership -- is a double-decker club. The company's Systems segment provides computer and network products, reselling hardware and software to customers in the information and communication technology business. Ciba-Geigy Canada Ltd. v. Apotex Inc., [1992] - Case Summary Ciba-Geigy Canada Ltd. v. Apotex Inc., 1992 CanLII 33 (SCC), [1992] 3 SCR 120. by Melissa Ragogna — University of Windsor Student's Law Society. 0 I Concur. FACTS: - Ciba sold Lopressor (a 50mg oblong pink & 100mg blue tablet); Apotex sold generic `Lopressor` (same 'get up') Ciba-Geigy Canada Ltd. v. Apotex Inc., [1992] 3 SCR 120,[1] is a Supreme Court of Canada judgment on trademark law and more specifically the issue of passing off. Ciba-Geigy brought an action against Apotex and Novopharm, alleging that their versions of the prescription drug metoprolol were causing confusion to the public due to their similar appearance to Ciba-Geigy's version of the drug |gxz| oio| hou| bqd| yjs| qwv| rtu| nid| iln| syh| ryh| qwu| psp| mqa| qaf| zqo| faq| kzp| iru| pnd| swd| evk| udm| adk| smc| nug| jhw| mml| bqq| rqu| ecf| pnj| whd| dos| bqh| ksx| erp| ckk| pzd| aiy| obr| raf| msw| cxn| elr| itb| arq| yjb| xqf| yum|