Pharma — India Trademark Cases
454 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 16 · 454 total
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v.Pragati Enterprise & Ors.
The Delhi High Court formally accepted a settlement reached between Manash Lifestyle Private Limited and Pragati Enterprise & Ors. The original suit involved claims of trademark infringement, copyright violation, passing off, and unfair competition related to the brand 'DermDOC'. By agreeing to the terms of the Settlement Agreement dated May 28, 2025, the defendants acknowledged the plaintiff's proprietary rights, agreed not to use similar marks, and consented to the transfer of the domain name https://dermdoms.com/ to the plaintiff. The court consequently decreed the suit based on this compromise.
Aculife Healthcare Private Limited v.Auspharma Private Limited
The Madras High Court disposed of OP(TM)No.34 of 2025, which sought rectification of a trademark registration. Although listed for reporting settlement, the court formally accepted and gave effect to a Memorandum of Compromise (MOC) between Aculife Healthcare Private Limited and Auspharma Private Limited. The judgment confirmed that the MOC would form part of the order, effectively resolving the dispute without further litigation.
Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd. v.Syed Jawed Mohsin & Another
The Calcutta High Court allowed Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd.'s application for the cancellation and rectification of the mark 'PROTIFIX'. The court found that PROTIFIX was deceptively similar to the petitioner's established trademark, PROTINEX, both visually and phonetically, leading to a high likelihood of consumer confusion in the healthcare goods market. Furthermore, the respondent failed to provide credible evidence of genuine use for the impugned mark, satisfying the grounds for cancellation under Section 47 of the Act.
J. B. Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Mensa Futura Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of J. B. Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals Limited against Mensa Futura Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., addressing the alleged infringement of the 'ZECUF' trademark. The court recognized the established goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff's pharmaceutical brand, leading to the appointment of a Local Commissioner. This commissioner is tasked with verifying stock and seizing infringing products, underscoring the judiciary's commitment to protecting registered trademarks in the fast-moving pharma sector.
Parth Formulation Pvt Ltd v.Paam Biotech Private Limited
In a passing-off dispute concerning pharmaceutical packaging, the Delhi High Court found prima facie that the defendants' packaging was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's. While the court noted the parties were open to settlement, it directed Paam Biotech to change its packaging color away from red and mandated Parth Formulation to submit sales data for the past three years.
M/S. Adarsh Pharmaceutical Works v.Rhugved Pharmaceuticals
The Bombay High Court addressed a writ petition filed by M/S. Adarsh Pharmaceutical Works challenging the rejection of its application for a stay of proceedings in a related trademark suit. The petitioner argued that since their own suit regarding the same product was already pending and had an injunction, the subsequent suit filed by Rhugved Pharmaceuticals seeking passing off should be stayed under Section 10 of the CPC. The Court agreed with the petitioner's stance, directing that the District Judge-12, Nagpur, shall not proceed with Trademark Suit No.3 of 2023 in the interim.
Novartis Ag & Anr. v.Novarise Pharmachem Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Novartis against Novarise Pharmachem Private Limited, addressing a trademark infringement dispute. The court found that the Plaintiffs had established a prima facie case regarding their registered trade mark 'NOVARTIS,' noting its extensive use and high goodwill in the pharmaceutical sector. Given the likelihood of consumer confusion between 'NOVARTIS' and 'NOVARISE,' the court restrained the defendant from manufacturing or selling products under the impugned mark until further hearing.
Akums Drugs An Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Medivinc Healthcare Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Akums Drugs against Medivinc Healthcare. The court granted exemptions for various procedural requirements, including pre-institution mediation and advance service to defendants. Crucially, the court allowed the plaintiffs' application for an ex parte ad-interim injunction, directing the appointment of Local Commissioners to secure evidence and prevent further infringement.
Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Chembott Chemicals And Pharmaceutical Private Limited and Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals against Chembott Chemicals. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a strong prima facie case regarding the infringement of its registered trademark, 'COBADEX', by the defendants' mark, 'COZIDEX'. Given the nature of pharmaceutical products and the potential for irreparable harm to both parties and the public, the injunction was granted immediately until the next hearing date.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Mankind Pharma Limited appealed the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its mark PETKIND in Class 5, citing similarity to a prior application 'PETKIND PHARMA'. The Appellant argued that its extensive goodwill and established 'KIND Family of Marks' should prevail. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection order.
Cipla Limited v.Union Of India Through Department Of Promotion Of Industry And Internal Trade & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Cipla Limited, directing the Trademark Registry to allow the renewal of its 'TRIEXER' trademark. The core finding was that the Registry failed to serve the mandatory statutory 'O3 notice' required under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Despite the trademark having lapsed and the petitioner failing to file timely renewals, the court emphasized this procedural lapse by the Respondent, granting Cipla a chance to regularize its mark.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Aubade Healthcare Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Glaxo Group Limited against Aubade Healthcare Private Limited regarding trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, demonstrating a balance of convenience, and noting the likelihood of irreparable harm if the Defendants were not restrained from using similar marks to 'ZENTEL.' This interim order is crucial for protecting the Plaintiff's brand integrity while the main suit proceeds.
Novartis Ag & Anr. v.M/S Steris Healthcare Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, concerning the removal and rectification of the trademark 'INCLISIRAN' (Registration No. 5547194) in Class 05. The court issued notice to all parties involved, setting a timeline for filing replies and rejoinders. This marks the formal commencement of the legal challenge against the registered mark.
Brawn Biotech Ltd. v.Brawn Healthcare India P. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court has formally registered the trademark infringement suit filed by Brawn Biotech Ltd. against Brawn Healthcare India P. Ltd., following the failure of mediation proceedings to settle the dispute. The court has set out procedural timelines, including filing written statements and replication. Crucially, the court also granted notice for an ex-parte ad-interim injunction application, allowing the plaintiffs to seek immediate protection against alleged infringement of the 'BRAWN' trademark.
Chemo Healthcare Private Limited v.Examiner Of Trademarks & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court allowed Chemo Healthcare Private Limited's appeal against the rejection of its trademark registration for 'VILDAZE'. The court held that despite objections raised under Section 11(1) of the Trade Mark Act, 1999, the appellant was entitled to have the mark advertised. This decision allows the applicant to establish prior use and address any third-party opposition on its merits.
Abbott Products Operations Ag v.Ms. Aprajita Sushma Proprietor Of Alrom Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications in the trademark dispute involving Abbott Products Operations Ag and Alrom Pharmaceuticals. The court allowed the petitioner's application seeking leave to file additional documents, while simultaneously initiating proceedings for a rectification petition concerning the 'KREOFLAT' trademark. This order sets out timelines for both parties to file replies and written synopses, moving the core dispute forward.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd & Anr. v.Janricsan Pharma P Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd against Janricsan Pharma P Ltd. The court found a prima facie case for trademark infringement, noting the potential for dangerous public confusion due to the similarity between the parties' pharmaceutical product names. This protective order restrains the defendants from manufacturing or selling products under marks deemed deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered trademarks until the final hearing.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Kindwaves Healthcare Private Limited
In a trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs favoring the plaintiff, Mankind Pharma Limited. The court allowed the appointment of a Local Commissioner to conduct an inventory of all products bearing the allegedly infringing mark 'KINDWAVES' at the defendant's premises. Furthermore, recognizing the urgency of the matter, the court exempted the plaintiff from mandatory pre-institution mediation and granted exemption from advance service, allowing the suit to proceed swiftly.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Caremankind Hospital Private Limited
Mankind Pharma Limited successfully secured an interim injunction against Caremankind Hospital Private Limited in the Delhi High Court. The court found a prima facie case for infringement and passing off, noting that the defendant was using identical or deceptively similar marks ('MANKIND'/'CAREMANKIND') in relation to similar services. This crucial early ruling protects Mankind Pharma's established brand equity while the main suit proceeds.
Dabur India Limited v.Patanjali Ayurved Limited And Anr.
Dabur India Limited filed a suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction, alleging that Patanjali Ayurved Limited disparaged Dabur Chyawanprash and the entire market class through its advertisements (TVC and Print Advertisements) for 'Patanjali Special Chyawanprash'. The court heard interim applications regarding these ads.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v.K.Venkateshwara Rao
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited sought the rectification and removal of a trademark registration ('NICSON PHARMA') held by K.Venkateshwara Rao, arguing that it was deceptively similar to its own established mark 'SUN PHARMA'. The Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the petition. The court found that when comparing the two marks as a whole, there was no likelihood of confusion or deception among the average consumer, thereby upholding the validity of the rival registration.
M/s. Dr.J.R.K's Research and Pharmaceuticals Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Dr.J.R.K's Research and Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, directing the Registrar of Trademarks to accept and process a renewal application for the mark 'NATURE'S WEALTH RESTORES HEALTH.' The court held that as long as the trade mark has not been formally removed from the register, the proprietor is entitled to seek renewal, setting aside the rejection order issued by the Registry. This decision provides crucial protection against administrative hurdles preventing legitimate trademark renewals.
Hamdard National Foundation (India) v.Klm Pharma Seema Aggarwal Proprietor
The plaintiffs, part of the Hamdard Group, sued KLM Pharma for infringing their well-known Unani medicine trademark 'SAFI' and its associated trade dress. The defendant was found to be using a deceptively similar mark, 'SAIFI,' for identical goods (blood purifier).
Cipla Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the dispute between Cipla Limited and the Union of India regarding a trademark application. Recognizing issues with traceability of previous notices, the court allowed Cipla to proceed by granting permission to file applications for the restoration and renewal of Trademark Application No. 1694972 within two weeks. The petitioner was also directed to complete necessary procedural filings within four weeks, effectively allowing the matter to move forward.
Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Varav Biogenesis Private Limited And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals against Varav Biogenesis Private Limited. The court permitted the plaintiff to file additional documents, including sales figures for its 'COBADEX' mark, in a sealed cover. Crucially, the court also initiated proceedings regarding the core dispute, noting that the plaintiff alleges the defendants are using the deceptively similar mark 'CODODEX' for medicinal products, seeking permanent injunction against trademark infringement and passing off.
Glaxo Group Limited And Anr. v.Dinesh Sirvi And Ors
In a trademark infringement suit concerning pharmaceutical products 'Augsomention' and 'Sheoical-nx CCM,' the Delhi High Court issued several orders. The court exempted the plaintiffs from pre-litigation mediation while granting them liberty to file confidential sales documents in sealed cover for protection. Crucially, after both parties agreed to refer their dispute to mandatory mediation, the court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the disputed marks until a settlement is reached.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Wockhardt Limited And Anr.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories filed a petition in the Delhi High Court seeking the cancellation of the trademark registration 'PACTYON' held by Wockhardt Limited. The respondents objected to the maintainability of the suit, arguing that the mark was registered in Mumbai. The court accepted notice and set procedural timelines for filing replies and rejoinders, indicating that the matter will proceed through standard litigation steps.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v.Oziel Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application for a consent decree in the dispute between Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Oziel Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. The parties reached an amicable settlement regarding trademark infringement concerning 'PEPFIZ' and 'MINOZ'. Key terms include Defendants recognizing Plaintiff's exclusive rights, agreeing to cease use of deceptively similar marks like 'PEPFIX' and 'MINOZIL', and changing the product name from 'MINOZIL' to 'MINODYL'. The court partially decreed the suit based on these binding settlement terms.
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.Indorbit Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court rejected Torrent Pharmaceuticals' oral request to pass a permanent injunction and decree against Indorbit Pharmaceuticals based on passing off and copyright infringement. Although the defendants failed to file written statements, the court found that the plaintiff had not sufficiently established its prior adoption and usage of the new trade dress (SHELCAL-500) since September 2022. The judgment emphasizes that while a party's failure to respond can lead to a default decree, the threshold for such an order is high, especially in complex IP matters like pharmaceutical products, necessitating full evidence and trial.
M/S Green Star Pharma Llp v.Ved Prakash Trading As Green Star Pharma
This Delhi High Court order addresses an appeal filed by M/S Green Star Pharma Llp against the Commercial Court's dismissal of its interim injunction application. The core dispute revolves around the use of the 'GREEN STAR' trademark in the pharmaceutical sector. While the appellant relies on passing off, the court raises significant questions regarding the timing and scope of goodwill acquisition, especially given the respondent's earlier registered device mark.
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.