Short Summary
The Plaintiffs, Laboratories Griffon Pvt Ltd, filed a suit alleging trade mark infringement and passing off against the Defendants, Ramesht Industry Pvt Ltd. The dispute centers on the use of identical or confusingly similar marks (GLIMET, GLIMET-1, GLIMET-2) for pharmaceutical products used in treating diabetes. The Court found a prima facie case and granted an ad-interim injunction.
Detailed Summary
In the pharmaceutical world, a brand name is more than a label, it is a promise of trust, consistency, and patient safety. When that name is copied, the damage goes far beyond lost sales; it strikes at the heart of credibility. The dispute between Laboratories Griffon Pvt. Ltd. and Ramesht Industry Pvt. Ltd. is a stark reminder that in healthcare branding, similarity is not a minor detail, it is the entire battleground.
Laboratories Griffon Pvt. Ltd., the plaintiff in this case, had built its identity around a family of pharmaceutical marks, GLIMET, GLIMET-1, and GLIMET-2, used for products aimed at treating diabetes. These marks were registered trademarks, giving the company formal recognition of their distinctiveness in the market. Ramesht Industry Pvt. Ltd., the defendant, entered the same therapeutic space using identical or confusingly similar marks for its own diabetes-related products. Believing that its registered rights were being eroded and that consumers were likely to be misled, Laboratories Griffon approached the court seeking relief for trademark infringement and passing off.
Laboratories Griffon argued that its marks, GLIMET, GLIMET-1, and GLIMET-2, were its registered intellectual property and had acquired a distinct identity in the pharmaceutical market, particularly among diabetes patients and prescribers. The use of identical marks by Ramesht Industry, they contended, was a clear case of infringement and passing off, designed to ride on the goodwill already established by the original brand. Ramesht Industry, on the other hand, positioned its case around the idea that differences in formulation or product composition should matter in determining whether confusion was likely. The core legal friction was simple but powerful: does the registration of a trademark, combined with identical use in the same class of goods, automatically create a prima facie case of infringement, regardless of whether the underlying formulations differ?
The Court sided with Laboratories Griffon. It found that a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off had been made out by the plaintiffs. The Court reasoned that the registration of a trademark serves as formal recognition of its inherent distinctiveness, and when identical marks are deployed for goods falling within the same class, the likelihood of confusion and deception is presumed. The fact that the formulations behind the marks may have differed was not enough to defeat the claim. Based on this reasoning, the Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Laboratories Griffon, restraining Ramesht Industry from using the contested GLIMET marks during the pendency of the proceedings.
For founders and IP professionals in the pharmaceutical space, this case delivers a clear and urgent message: a registered trademark is not just a legal formality, it is a fortified boundary around your brand's identity. If you operate in a therapeutic category where patients and doctors rely on familiar names, even a closely similar mark can be treated as infringement. Before launching any product, conduct thorough trademark searches, respect the boundaries of existing registrations, and remember that in the same class of goods, identical branding will almost always be viewed by the courts as a shortcut to someone else's goodwill. Build your own distinct identity; do not borrow another company's.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Bombay High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Laboratories Griffon Pvt Ltd vs Ramesht Industry Pvt Ltd is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Mahesh Namkeen Pvt. Ltd.vsOm Prakash Nebhwani (Trading as: Mahesh Matar Namkeen)
Mahesh Namkeen Pvt. Ltd., a Lucknow-based company engaged in manufacturing namkeens and snacks since 1983 under the trademark 'MAHESH' (with parrot device), sued Om Prakash Nebhwani for trademark infringement and passing off. The defendant, who is the nephew of the plaintiff's director and had prior knowledge of the mark, adopted the identical 'MAHESH' mark with parrot/peacock device for his own namkeen business in Jaipur. The defendant's defense was struck off for non-filing of written statement. The court found the plaintiff's mark to be distinctive, well-established, and a well-known trademark, and held that the defendant's use constituted slavish copying amounting to infringement and passing off.
Ms Pas AgrovsM/S Krbl Limited & Anr
Ms Pas Agro has filed a petition under Section 124(1)(b)(ii) of the Trademarks Act challenging the Commercial Court's order dismissing its application to frame a preliminary issue on the invalidity of KRBL's registered trademark 'INDIA GATE' (application no. 599833). The underlying suit CS (COMM) 78/2025 was filed by KRBL against Pas Agro. The Delhi High Court issued notice, permitted deletion of respondent no.2, and granted time for filing reply and rejoinder. The substantive question of whether a preliminary issue on trademark invalidity should be framed remains pending.
Cryogas Equipment Private LimitedvsInox India Limited & Ors.
The Supreme Court disposed of a miscellaneous application seeking extension of time for the trial court to decide Trademark Suit No. 3 of 2019 between Cryogas Equipment Private Limited and Inox India Limited. As a last opportunity, the Court granted an additional six months to the concerned court to decide the suit, while expressly warning that no further extension would be entertained. The underlying dispute concerns trademark rights in the cryogenic/industrial gas equipment sector.
Mankind Consumer Products Private LimitedvsAlaina Healthcare Private Limited & A. Menarini India Private Limited
Mankind Consumer Products, the registered proprietor of the trademark ACNESTAR (Reg. No. 1352577 in Class 5) since 2005, sued Alaina Healthcare and A. Menarini India for using the marks ACNE SCAR/ACNE+SCAR/ACNESCAR on their acne scar serum product HEXILAK. The court found a prima facie case of deceptive similarity, noting that the dominant feature 'ACNE' was common and the suffix 'STAR' vs 'SCAR' was insufficient to distinguish the marks, especially given the identical trade channels and consumer class. The court granted an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff while allowing defendant no. 2 a two-month period to recall existing stock from the trade.
Healthium Medtech Limited (earlier Healthium Medtech Private Limited)vsThe Registrar of Trade Marks, Chennai
Healthium Medtech Limited filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to compel the Registrar of Trade Marks to expeditiously dispose of Opposition No. 1027536 filed by Glenmark Pharmaceuticals against Healthium's trademark application No. 4270882 for the 'Healthium' device mark in Classes 05 and 10. The petitioner complained that despite evidence having been adduced, the opposition proceedings remained pending without a final hearing. The Madras High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Registrar to hear both parties and dispose of the opposition on merits within four weeks.
CavinKare Private LimitedvsMaha Aqua, Trading As Mahalakshmi Aqua
CavinKare Private Limited filed a trademark infringement suit against Maha Aqua (trading as Mahalakshmi Aqua) seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from using the mark 'MAA' or any deceptively similar mark in respect of goods in Class 32. The plaintiff relies on its registered trademarks 'MAA' under Nos. 1109946 and 6453733. The Court, after issues were framed and affidavits of admission/denial filed, approved a Joint Case Management Schedule suggested by both parties and set timelines for completion of evidence and oral arguments.
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.
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.