Identical Marks For Medicines Could Mislead Customers, Delhi High Court Restrains Rebanta Healthcare From Using Dr Reddys' Registered Trademark
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held that using visually and phonetically identical marks for medicines could confuse the general public, especially when the products serve different medical purposes. A permanent injunction was granted against Rebanta Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. for using Dr Reddys Laboratories Ltd.'s trademark 'REBAHEAL'. Both Rebanta and Dr...
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held that using visually and phonetically identical marks for medicines could confuse the general public, especially when the products serve different medical purposes.
A permanent injunction was granted against Rebanta Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. for using Dr Reddys Laboratories Ltd.'s trademark 'REBAHEAL'. Both Rebanta and Dr Reddys are pharmaceutical companies which manufacture a wide range of medicinal products.
Brief Facts:
Dr Reddys Laboratories Ltd. (“Dr Reddys”) launched a medicine for treating pectic and mouth ulcers, named 'REBAHEAL'. The name was registered as a trademark. Subsequently, Rebanta Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. (“Rebanta”) also started selling a product under the same name. Rebanta's product was for a different ailment and composition, intended to treat pain and regulate menstruation and bone fractures.
Dr. Reddys filed a suit for permanent injunction before the Delhi High Court (“High Court”) against Rebanta to restrain the violation and infringement of its trademark. Dr Reddys contended that the use of such an identical mark by Rebanta could cause disastrous consequences if confused with the original 'REBAHEAL' medicine as both products were intended for separate medical purposes. Further, the use of a similar mark by Rebanta was intended to infringe Dr Reddys' statutory rights and mislead consumers.
Rebanta did not appear before the High Court. Therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte.
Observations by the High Court:
The High Court observed that Dr Reddys had established a prima facie case for the grant of interim relief in its favour. It was noted that Dr Reddy's was likely to suffer irreparable loss and injury to its goodwill and reputation if relief was not granted. The balance of convenience also lay in its favour.
The High Court held that the rival marks "REBAHEAL" and "REBAHEAL" were visually and phonetically identical. This similarity would likely cause confusion and deception among the general public, doctors, and chemists. Moreover, the High Court noted that the rival products were intended for different ailments. This could lead to serious health implications if, due to confusion, the wrong medicine was taken by patients.
The High Court also pointed out that the class of consumers for both parties directly overlapped. Both parties used the name "REBAHEAL" for different purposes, which could cause serious injury to public health. The general public might believe that the infringing product of Rebanta was the same as Dr Reddys' product because the names were identical.
Therefore, the High Court directed Rebanta and all other persons acting on its behalf to restrain from manufacturing, marketing, supplying, selling, and offering for sale, including online, or advertising, directly or indirectly, any medicinal, ayurvedic, or pharmaceutical preparations under the impugned trademark "REBAHEAL" or any other mark deceptively similar to Dr Reddys' trademark "REBAHEAL."
Case Title: Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited vs Rebanta Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 793
Case No.: CS (COMM) 553/2024 & I.A. No.s. 32621/2024, 32622/2024, 32623/2024 & 32624/2024
Advocate for the Plaintiff: Mr Ranjan Narula with Mr Shaki Priyan Nair, Ms Aishani Singh and Ms Shivangi Kohli
Advocate for the Defendants: None
Date of Order: 09.07.2024