Case Note & Summary
The case involved a commercial appeal filed by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. against an order of the Single Judge vacating an ad-interim injunction that had restrained Meghmani Lifesciences Ltd. from using the trademark 'ESIRAFT' for pharmaceutical products. The appellant, a leading pharmaceutical company, claimed proprietorship over the registered trademark 'RACIRAFT' in Class 05, coined in January 2022 and used since June 2022 for an oral suspension treating heartburn and indigestion. In February 2025, the appellant discovered that the respondent had launched a product under the mark 'ESIRAFT', containing the same active molecules and intended for the same ailment. The appellant filed a suit for infringement and passing off, and on 7 April 2025, an ad-interim injunction was granted by the Single Judge, observing a strong prima facie case of deceptive similarity. However, on 23 December 2025, the Single Judge vacated that injunction and dismissed the interim application, finding no prima facie case of deceptive similarity. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred the present appeal, contending that the Single Judge had failed to apply the correct legal tests for comparison of trademarks, particularly the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Cadila Health Care Ltd. vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., which mandate a higher standard of caution for pharmaceutical products. The appellant argued that the marks were visually, structurally, and phonetically similar, and that the respondent's use of a split-colour presentation akin to the appellant's packaging indicated dishonest adoption. Reliance was placed on several precedents emphasizing the anti-dissection rule, the overall impression test, and the need to avoid meticulous syllable-by-syllable comparison. The appeal was heard, and the court's analysis and final decision were not included in the text provided.
Headnote
A) Trademark Law - Deceptive Similarity - Test of Comparison - Trade Marks Act, 1999 - The appellate court considered the applicability of the anti-dissection rule and the need to assess overall impression, phonetic and visual similarity, rather than meticulous comparison, as per Cadila principles, especially for pharmaceutical products where even slight confusion could be life-threatening (Paras 5-6). B) Interim Injunction - Prima Facie Case - Balance of Convenience - Trade Marks Act, 1999 - The Single Judge had initially found a strong prima facie case in favour of the appellant, noting that the respondent had used 'Esi' and 'Raft' in different colours similar to appellant's presentation, and that 'RAFT' was not sourced from a molecule, supporting the claim of a coined mark (Paras 3-4). C) Coined and Arbitrary Marks - Higher Protection - Trade Marks Act, 1999 - The registered mark 'RACIRAFT' was argued to be a coined and arbitrary mark, enjoying higher protection, as the combination of 'RACI' and 'RAFT' had no descriptive meaning in relation to the goods (Para 3). D) Infringement and Passing Off - Visual and Phonetic Similarity - Trade Marks Act, 1999 - The appellant contended that the marks 'RACIRAFT' and 'ESIRAFT' were virtually visually, structurally, and phonetically similar, and that the impugned mark when viewed independently would create an impression of association of common origin in the mind of the average consumer (Paras 2, 7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Single Judge erred in vacating the ad-interim injunction by holding that the marks 'RACIRAFT' and 'ESIRAFT' are not deceptively similar for pharmaceutical products, contrary to the established principles of trademark law as laid down in Cadila Health Care Ltd. vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and other precedents.
Law Points
- deceptive similarity test
- anti-dissection rule
- overall impression
- phonetic similarity
- coined marks
- higher protection for pharmaceutical trademarks
- prima facie case for interim injunction
