Court told Nualtra changed name of product since proceedings began

The Limerick-based makers of a nutritional supplement drink, which is the subject of an alleged trademark infringement case, had renamed their product since the legal proceedings began, a judge was told.

NutriMedical BV, a Dutch manufacturer of supplements, claims its EU trademark of its "Nutriplete" range has been infringed by a confusingly similar "Nutriplen" product sold by Nualtra Ltd.

London-based Aymes International was joined by order of the court as a co-plaintiff with NutriMedical in the case.

Nualtra, which is based in Limerick, denies the claim.

Origin links up with UCD for crop science research

---

Fyffes timeline: A short history of the banana giant

---

Zara owner saved almost €600m in tax in markets including Ireland

---

Greencore shareholders back $747m bid for Peacock Foods

---

The drink is provided by medical professionals as a food supplement for seriously ill patients at risk of disease related malnutrition, often as a result of chronic wounds or post-surgery.

When the trademark infringement action opened on Wednesday before Mr Justice Michael Twomey in the Commercial Court, the judge was told Nualtra had rebranded its product earlier this year with the name “Altraplen”.

Similar name

Paul Coughlan, for Nutrimedical, said his client was still seeking an injunction preventing continuing infringement because there had been no undertaking from Nualtra that the Nutriplen product would not be reused.

Mr Coughlan said their case was Nualtra had launched Nutriplen in Ireland in 2012 and the UK in 2013, marketing and selling it with a confusingly similar name to the NutriMedical product which already had EU trademark status.

The three varieties of the product were “visually, aurally and conceptually similar”, he said.

Nualtra had admitted it had sold millions of euro worth of the product in Ireland and Britain, he said.

Bernard Dunleavy SC, for Nualtra, disputed there could be any confusion as the product was only sold to medical professionals and not to the consumer.

The case continues.