Pharma — India Trademark Cases
454 decisions indexed
Page 10 of 16 · 454 total
Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd v.Mhs Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd
Centaur Pharmaceuticals filed a Leave Petition against MHS Pharmaceuticals regarding the alleged infringement of its long-standing pharmaceutical trademark, SINAREST, by the Defendant's mark, SINARITE. The court granted the leave petition and directed both parties to file affidavits in reply and rejoinder within specified timelines.
Emami Ltd v.Torque Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
The defendant filed an application seeking modification of a previous interim order. The court observed that the suit involved infringement and passing off and was valued in excess of the specified limit. Consequently, the case (IN EOS/4/2020) and the associated application (IA GA 1 of 2021) were transferred to the Commercial Division.
Exphar S.A. v.Atlanta Biological Pvt. Ltd
In this trademark infringement matter, the defendant agreed not to contest the permanent injunction against them, provided the plaintiffs waived their claims for damages and costs. While both parties settled on the injunctive relief, the core dispute regarding whether the plaintiff's mark, VERZOL, qualifies as a well-known trademark remains unresolved. The court has scheduled further proceedings specifically to determine this crucial aspect of the case.
Cadila Healthcare Limited v.Uniza Healthcare Llp. & Anr.
Cadila Healthcare Limited sought an ad-interim injunction against Uniza Healthcare LLP, alleging that the defendant's trademark 'ZACLEAR' was deceptively similar to Cadila's mark 'ZYCLEAR'. The Delhi High Court declined to grant the immediate injunction, primarily noting discrepancies in the plaintiff's claim regarding the date of adoption and registration of 'ZYCLEAR'. Instead, the court directed both parties to complete their pleadings, file written statements, and proceed with the suit for a final determination.
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.Mankind Pharma Ltd
The plaintiff filed a suit for trademark infringement combined with passing off. The defendant challenged the court's jurisdiction, arguing that since both parties had offices in Delhi, the Bombay High Court lacked competence to hear the common law claim. The court rejected this submission, affirmed its jurisdiction under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and made the Clause XIV Petition absolute.
Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Pro Bios Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
In a trademark dispute concerning the brand name OMEZ, Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited and Pro Bios Pharmaceuticals Private Limited agreed to pursue settlement. The defendants indicated they had ceased using the disputed mark, leading both parties to agree that mediation was the preferred path forward. Consequently, the Delhi High Court scheduled the parties for mediation at its Conciliation Centre.
Cipla Limited v.Laborate Pharmaceuticals India Ltd
In a trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court directed the parties, Cipla Limited and Laborate Pharmaceuticals India Ltd, to engage in formal mediation. Following successful settlement talks on two of the three trademarks, the court facilitated further negotiations for the remaining mark. This order underscores the judiciary's preference for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in complex IP conflicts.
Ajanta Pharma Limited v.Saphnix Life Science
Ajanta Pharma Limited filed an interim application seeking relief against Saphnix Life Science for alleged infringement of its registered trade mark, ARTEFAN. The court examined the evidence showing that the defendant was using an identical trade mark on similar pharmaceutical preparations. Based on the prima facie case established by the plaintiff, the ad-interim injunction was granted.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Park Pharmaceuticals
Glaxo Group Limited successfully concluded its trademark infringement litigation against Park Pharmaceuticals through an amicable settlement. The court decreed the suit based on the compromise, which required Park Pharmaceuticals to cease using deceptively similar marks like AQUAMENTIN and CETUM, acknowledge Glaxo's ownership of AUGMENTIN and CEFTUM, change product branding (to CLAVPARK and PARXETIL), destroy all infringing materials, and pay a settlement amount of Rs. 1,50,000.
Shalina Laboratories Private Limited v.Floris Biotech LLP
The dispute involved Shalina Laboratories Private Limited challenging Floris Biotech LLP regarding the use of the trademark FLOCLAV. The parties reached a settlement, with defendants providing undertakings and submitting new labels that were deemed distinctly different from the plaintiffs' artwork/trade dress.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Pro Bios Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited against Pro Bios Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. The dispute centered on the unauthorized use and copying of the registered trademark 'OMEZ' for the medicinal preparation OMEPRAZOLE. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, noting both trademark infringement ('OMZES') and copying of packaging, thereby preventing irreparable loss to Dr. Reddys.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited v.R S Chauhan Proprietor Of Fern Biotech & Mediva Lifecare
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim ex-parte injunction favoring Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited in its trademark infringement suit against R S Chauhan Proprietor Of Fern Biotech & Mediva Lifecare. The dispute centered on the use of 'RAZO' by the plaintiff and 'RAPRAZO' by the defendant for the drug Rabeprazole. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima-facie case, noting similarities in both the marks and the packaging design (blue and white color combination), leading to the grant of immediate injunctive relief.
Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited v.Malvinder Mohan Singh And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications concerning the sale of trademarks ('Religare', 'SRL', and 'Fortis') owned by a Judgment Debtor. While some parties conceded no objection to the sale, others vehemently opposed it due to existing charges or lack of information. The court granted time extensions to opposing parties to file affidavits detailing their stance on the trademark sales, ensuring all stakeholders are heard before proceeding with any auction.
Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte Ltd. v.Alexi Pharmicia & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte Ltd. against Alexi Pharmicia & Anr. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement of Danone's proprietary rights, including its registered trademark 'PROTINEX,' trade dress, and associated copyrights, by the defendants who were selling a deceptively similar product under the mark 'PROTILEX.' The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and that granting an injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable loss.
Indoco Remedies Ltd. v.Bristol 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.
USV Private Limited v.Paksons Pharmaceutical Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of USV Private Limited against Paksons Pharmaceutical Pvt Ltd, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court noted that the defendant's use of a deceptively similar mark for 'Multi Vitamin Infusion' could mislead consumers into believing the product originated from the plaintiff. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using the infringing trademark until further hearing.
Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v.Healing Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an infringement suit filed by Alkem Laboratories against Healing Pharma India. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's trademark and trade dress were deceptively similar, specifically mimicking the plaintiff's 'rising sun' motif. While the court allowed procedural applications for document filing and curing deficiencies, it also moved forward with the litigation by ordering summons to be issued in the main suit.
USV Private Limited v.Ridley Life Science Private Ltd
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement dispute concerning the use of 'Multi Vitamin Infusion' on pharmaceutical labels. The plaintiff, USV Private Limited, alleged that the defendant's product used emphasized letters ('M', 'V', 'I') in a manner confusingly similar to the plaintiff's registered mark. In a significant development, the court accepted the defendant's willingness to modify the label and remove the disputed words, directing them to file an affidavit confirming this commitment.
Gilead Sciences Ireland Inc. v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Gilead Sciences Ireland Inc., setting aside previous refusal orders regarding a trademark registration. The court found that the original orders violated Section 18(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, because they failed to provide adequate reasons for refusing the application. This judgment underscores the mandatory requirement for IP authorities to furnish clear and reasoned decisions when rejecting an application.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed Sun Pharma's appeal against a lower court order that denied an interim injunction. Sun Pharma sought protection for its registered trademark 'BEVETEX' against Intas Pharmaceuticals' use of 'BEVATAS,' alleging infringement and passing off in the pharmaceutical sector. The court found no prima facie case for infringement, noting that while both drugs are cancer treatments, their trade dress and administration methods were not remotely similar. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Modi Mundipharma Beauty Products Private Limited
In this interim application, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals sought clarification regarding a previous court order concerning the use of the trademark 'CANDID'. The Bombay High Court addressed the request by formalizing an undertaking from Defendant No. 1. This ruling reinforces the immediate injunctive relief against the defendant, requiring them to cease importing or distributing goods under the disputed mark while the main litigation proceeds.
Nippon Life Sciences Private Limited v.S. R. Life Science And Anr.
The Bombay High Court addressed the ongoing ad-interim injunction in a trademark infringement suit concerning the mark 'EPILIGHT'. While the court noted that previous orders needed extension, it confirmed that the existing restraining order against the defendants for using deceptively similar marks would continue to operate until November 18, 2019. The matter was subsequently scheduled for further hearing.
M/S Psychotropics India Ltd. v.M/S Syncom Healthcare Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed M/S Psychotropics India Ltd. to appoint Local Commissioners in the execution phase of a trademark infringement suit against M/S Syncom Healthcare Ltd. Despite initial rejection by the Trial Court, the High Court emphasized that permanent injunctions related to pharmaceutical products require strict enforcement due to public interest and consumer safety. The appointed commissioners were directed to seize infringing goods bearing the mark CTZ-10 and inspect sales accounts.
Apex Laboratories Private Ltd. v.Hezen Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Apex Laboratories Private Ltd., declaring them the exclusive proprietor of the trademark ZINCOVIT against Hezen Pharmaceuticals Limited. The court found that despite a past manufacturing agreement, which was subsequently terminated, the defendant had no right to claim ownership or make false propaganda about the mark. Consequently, the court granted an injunction restraining the defendant from making such claims and awarded damages to the plaintiff.
Rallis India Limited v.Rallis Pharmaceuticals & Anr.
Rallis India Limited filed a suit against Rallis Pharmaceuticals & Anr. alleging infringement and passing off related to the use of the trade mark 'RALLIS' in medicinal preparations, website domains, and business names. The court decreed the suit, granting perpetual injunctions against the defendants and ordering them to transfer the infringing domain name.
Cedar Properties & Trading Llp & Ors. v.Hab Pharmaceuticals & Research Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted a temporary injunction in favor of Cedar Properties & Trading LLP against Hab Pharmaceuticals & Research Limited. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were using the deceptively similar trademark 'DROTIOST' for pharmaceutical preparations, infringing upon their registered mark 'DROTIN'. Given the potential for consumer confusion in the medical field, the court restrained the defendant from manufacturing or selling products under the impugned mark until further hearing.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Madhusudan Pharmaceutical Agency and another
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited filed a commercial IP suit against Madhusudan Pharmaceutical Agency and others alleging infringement of its registered trade mark 'PANTOCID-DSR'. The court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and passed an interim order restraining the defendants from dealing in products bearing the impugned trademark.
Elder Projects Ltd. & Anr. v.Elder Pharmacia Llp & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the suit filed by Elder Projects Ltd. against Elder Pharmacia LLP, finding that the claim of passing off lacked a genuine cause of action. The court relied heavily on evidence provided by the plaintiff's Managing Director, which revealed that the plaintiff had previously claimed rights over the 'ELDER' trademark based on mistaken advice and was not the registered proprietor. Consequently, the interim ex-parte injunction granted to the plaintiff was vacated, marking a significant setback for Elder Projects Ltd.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Ankit Mishra
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. filed a suit against Ankit Mishra and others alleging infringement of its registered trademark No. 1692705 (in class 5) by the use of similar marks like 'MONTEKET' or 'MONTEKET-LC'. The Bombay High Court decreed the suit, granting perpetual injunctions against the defendants for infringing the mark and passing off goods.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v.Rainbow Life Sciences Pvt Ltd
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd filed a Commercial IP Suit against Rainbow Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. concerning trademark infringement related to pharmaceutical preparations. The Bombay High Court granted leave and issued an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the impugned trade mark "MONTEKAZ" or any deceptively similar marks.
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.