Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited v. Zeelab Pharmacy Pvt Ltd

CS(COMM) 388/2024

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited against Zeelab Pharmacy Pvt Ltd. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement, specifically concerning the use of 'OMEZEE' and 'OMEZEE-DM' for pharmaceutical products similar to the plaintiff's established mark 'OMEZ'. This immediate relief prevents the defendant from continuing manufacturing or marketing the infringing products until the full trial.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM) 388/2024
Decision Date
14 May 2024

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Delhi High Court - Orders. Understanding the court's reasoning in Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited vs Zeelab Pharmacy Pvt Ltd is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademark(T)OP(TM) No.169 of 2023

Jupiter Drugs Partnership ConcernvsMrs.M.Sarojini Proprietrix; The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks

Jupiter Drugs filed an Original Petition seeking to expunge or limit the registered trademark 'ZIPROVIT' (No. 1306475) held by Mrs. M. Sarojini Proprietrix, citing issues related to geographical scope and use. However, the Madras High Court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution because the petitioner could not be served notice due to an outdated address. This procedural dismissal effectively halted Jupiter Drugs' attempt to challenge the trademark registration.

trademarkCS(COMM) 350/2020 / IA No. 5120/2021

Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation LtdvsAmul-Franchise.in & Ors.

The Delhi High Court granted relief to Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd (AMUL) in its ongoing trademark infringement suit. The court allowed AMUL to implead new parties, including the domain registrar and Google LLC, to pursue fraudulent activities related to their brand. Crucially, the court ordered the suspension and blocking of the infringing domain name www.educationdindia.com and directed the freezing of a specific bank account linked to the alleged infringement.

trademarkR/CIVIL APPEAL NO. 98 of 2022

Biotech Visioncare Pvt Ltd.vsRegistrar Of Trade Marks

The Gujarat High Court quashed an earlier rejection order issued by the Registrar of Trademarks against Biotech Visioncare's trademark application for 'BIOVISION'. The petitioner successfully argued that a subsequent successful registration of the same mark provided grounds to reconsider the initial denial. Consequently, the court directed the Trademark Registry to freshly hear the original 2016 application while taking into account the later certificate of registration.

trademarkCS(COMM) 970/2024

M/S Mittal Electronics Through Its Partner Mr. Akhil AggarwalvsMr. Satapara Vijaybhai Bhikhabhai @ Vijay Prajapati Trading as Shree Ganesh Industries

The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application for consent decree, formally settling an intellectual property dispute between M/S Mittal Electronics and Mr. Satapara Vijaybhai Bhikhabhai. The settlement confirmed that the Plaintiff exclusively owns the 'SUJATA' trademark and required the Defendant to apologize for infringement and passing off. Crucially, the Defendant agreed to cease all use of similar marks, destroy existing goods, and pay Rs. 2,50,000/- as costs, while also undertaking a liquidated damages clause.

trademarkCOMAP No.401 of 2024

M/S Kaveri Plasto Containers Pvt LtdvsM/S Kaveri Polymers

The Karnataka High Court allowed an appeal filed by M/S Kaveri Plasto Containers Pvt Ltd, setting aside a lower court's decision that had barred them from filing a trademark infringement suit without first undergoing pre-institution mediation. The High Court held that because the appellant sought urgent interim reliefs, such as temporary injunction and appointment of a court commissioner, the mandatory requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act did not apply. Consequently, the original suit and all related applications were restored for trial.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Facing a trademark dispute?

Arctic's TM litigation team handles ~120 trademark matters per year across India, EU, and UK. From oppositions to infringement actions, we build winning arguments from precedent.

Talk to our TM team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar trademark matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call