Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v. Microcosm Pharma & Ors.

CS(COMM) 471/2024

In a trademark infringement suit, Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. filed a claim against Microcosm Pharma regarding the alleged deceptive similarity between its registered mark 'PEGMOVE' and the defendant's mark 'PEG-MU'. During court proceedings, the proprietor of Defendant No. 1 voluntarily offered to discontinue the use of the impugned mark and undertake not to adopt any similar marks. While the suit continues for formal registration and issue framing, this offer suggests a potential path toward an amicable resolution.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM) 471/2024
Judge(s)
Sanjeev Narula

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 Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. vs Microcosm Pharma & Ors. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkFAO(OS)(COMM) 3/2020

Indoco Remedies Ltd.vsBristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company

This order from the Delhi High Court addresses procedural matters in the dispute between Indoco Remedies Ltd. and Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company regarding the trademark 'APIXABID'. The court allowed certain exemption applications while also granting time to the respondents to file a reply concerning objections raised against the sale of 58,000 strips under the brand name.

trademark(T)Rev.Pet(IPD)/2/2024

Lv Bhavani SankarvsGemini Edibles And Fats India Pvt Ltd.

The Madras High Court addressed a Transfer Review Petition filed by Lv Bhavani Sankar against a previous rectification order concerning Trademark 3830617. The petitioner sought to keep the trademark registered. However, the court noted that the arguments in the current petition were identical to another pending petition and closed (T)Rev.Pet(IPD)/2/2024 without issuing a specific ruling on costs.

trademarkC/RA/204/2022

M/S Crompton Greaves LimitedvsRegistrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.

In this rectification case, M/S Crompton Greaves Limited sought to rectify Trademark No. 1131780 used by a respondent. However, given that the respondent had simultaneously filed an application seeking cancellation of the same trademark before the Registrar of Trade Marks, the High Court directed the Registrar to address the cancellation request directly. Consequently, the rectification application was disposed of without further proceedings.

trademarkCS(COMM) 697/2019 (I.A.82/2021 & I.A.689/2021)

Bisleri International Private LimitedvsM/S Shri Sai Foods & Beverages & Ors

The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiff, Bisleri International Private Limited, an extension of 90 days to execute local commissions in a trademark infringement suit. The court also appointed four additional advocates as local commissioners. This order facilitates the quantification of damages by allowing detailed inspection and inventory of infringing goods at the defendants' premises.

trademark48-IA(L)-18951-2025

Sapat International Pvt LtdvsNiravi Consumer Llp And Ors.

This interim application addressed allegations of contempt against the defendants for allegedly violating a prior court order. The plaintiff claimed that despite undertaking not to use the 'Sapat' mark in advertising packaged tea, the respondents continued to use 'Sapat Tea' on cash receipts and invoices. The court found prima facie evidence suggesting the violation, noting that the use of 'Sapat Tea' on sales documents amounted to advertisement. Consequently, the matter was listed for further consideration to determine compliance with the solemn undertaking.

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