Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited v. M/S Razenta Pharmaceuticals Private Limited and Anr
Decided on: 17th August, 2026
Coram: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
Citation: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 122/2025
Introduction
In a decision underscoring the need for heightened caution in the pharmaceutical sector, the High Court of Delhi held importance of distinctiveness in assessing the likelihood of confusion, especially in the disputes related to pharmaceutical products. In this case, the court was confronted with the classic case of identical trademarks for medicinal uses with same salt, raising fundamental questions on prior use, distinctiveness of pharmaceutical marks and the extent to which pharmaceutical norms can be relied upon to justify the adoption of similar marks. The judgment directed the cancellation of the respondent’s mark, reiterating Court’s duty to take utmost care to prevent any likelihood of confusion to prevent disastrous effects on the patients’ health.
Factual Background
The petitioner, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited, is one of the India’s largest pharmaceutical companies engaged in manufacturing, marketing, and distribution of pharmaceutical, nutritional and cosmetic products, both globally and in India. It is also among the top 3 Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API) companies in the world. The petitioner has coined and adopted the trademark “DAPLO”, as a source identifier since 2020, and has gained goodwill and immense reputation in the Indian markets as well as internationally.
Petitioner holds registrations in the mark DAPLO in various other countries including Singapore, Vietnam, Malaysia and Philippines. I further claimed to have heavily invested in the promotion of its products under this mark through various media channels.
The respondents, M/S Razenta Pharmaceuticals Private Limited and Anr, are also engaged in the pharmaceutical sector and obtained the registration of the mark “DAPLOGIN” in its favour under class 05 in 2024.
The petitioner approached the High Court of Delhi seeking cancellation of respondents’ trademark “DAPLOGIN”. It advanced two main arguments in support of their claim. First, that the impugned trademark is devoid of distinctive character, and deceptively similar to “DAPLO”, creating confusion among consumers and medical practitioners easily, since both of the them have same salt/composition and are used to treat Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus.
Secondly, the petitioner is a prior adopter, user and registered proprietor of the mark “DAPLO”, and have superior rights over the respondents.
The respondents, however, claimed that, “DAPLOGIN” was not deceptively similar to “DAPLO” and, both the marks have been existing in the market since 2024 without causing any confusion. It also argued that the mark was merely adopted in consonance with customary pharmaceutical practices, as the mark was derived from the salts of the concerned compositions.
Analysis
The Court first applied the classic test enunciated in Re Pianotist Co.’s Application, and reiterated in Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta, holding that the test for similarities between competing marks should be applied as a whole, and should be based on the average person with imperfect memory and average intelligence. The Court applied the anti-dissection rule in conjunction with the permissible dominant-mark test and concluded that the “DAPLO” part of the DAPLOGIN mark was “perceptibly dominant,” that the two marks were “phonetically similar” (in that “DAP-LO” was the same and the “GIN” was the “pronounced” part of the DAPLOGIN mark), and that the “DAPLO” portion of the DAPLOGIN mark was “dominantly present” in the mark.
It referred to the ‘exacting judicial scrutiny’ test laid down in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and pointed out that the close similarity between medicinal products can be life-threatening. It also relied on the Division Bench rulings in Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. and Macleods Pharmaceuticals which held that in the pharmaceutical industry, the mere existence of the slightest possibility of confusion was enough to preclude use of a deceptively similar mark; and warned that a prescription-only product would not automatically exclude the likelihood of confusion because of the possibility of error by physicians, pharmacists and consumers.
The Court found that the combined letters “DAP” and “LO” constitute a coined or distinctive mark that is not the prefix, suffix, abbreviation or short name of the API, and that DAPLO, as a whole, was not made up of the API “Dapagliflozin” or was not derived from the API. Therefore, it is not publici juris or generic. The Court noted the distinction in cases on which the Respondent relied, Sun Pharmaceutical Laboratories Ltd. v. Hetero Healthcare Ltd., Schering Corporation v. Alkem Laboratories Ltd. and Panacea Biotec Ltd. v. Recon Ltd. Such cases did not apply in the present case where the mark in question was not derived from or a short form of the principal ingredient. Interestingly, the Court also held that Respondent No. 1 also used “DAP” or “DAPLO” as the prefix and the dominant component of DAPLOGIN, thus debunking its claim that the term was generic.
The Court, in keeping with the other decisions of Under Armour, INC v. Aditya Birla Fashion & Retail Ltd. and Pankaj Goel v. Dabur India, also rejected the “common to trade” defence on the basis of the absence of any evidence of the existence of a prior registration, or that the same prefix “DAPLO” was used by a large number of third parties. In absence of such evidence, it could not be held that ‘common to trade’ is the same as ‘common to the register’. The Court, in its opinion, found that an unsuspecting purchaser of DAPLOGIN after seeing DAPLO would think of it as a variant or extension of the Petitioner’s product, as both drugs had the same API, treated the same disease, and the Petitioner was demonstrated to regularly market variants under the DAPLO trademark.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition and cancelled the registration of mark DAPLOGIN while also ordering the Registrar of Trade Marks to rectify the Register within six weeks to ensure the purity of Register.
The decision is helpful on a number of points of pharmaceutical trademark litigation. First, courts need to enforce a higher “exacting judicial scrutiny” standard and where competing marks are applied to medicinal products accept a lower quantum of proof of confusing similarity, because of the potential for consumer confusion to have “dire consequences” to the public health.
Second, a junior mark cannot avoid a finding of deceptive similarity simply by claiming that it was based on the identical API to which the senior mark is derived, and that the senior mark is a coined term that doesn’t as a whole describe or abbreviate that ingredient. Third, positive evidence that a mark is “common to the trade” is needed to defend the mark, and cannot be provided just by citing registrations.
This ruling is a clear endorsement for pharmaceutical innovators that prior adoption, coined marks and/or established goodwill will be strongly defended against subsequent marks that cover the same scope of protection even if the former mark was registered without opposition.