Introduction
The case of Glaxo Group Limited vs. Arisen Pharmaceuticals India Private Limited, decided on April 17, 2025, by the High Court of Delhi, is a landmark in trademark law, illustrating the judiciary’s vigilance in safeguarding intellectual property in the pharmaceutical sector. This commercial suit, centered on the plaintiff’s registered trademark FLIXONASE and the defendant’s allegedly infringing marks FLIXONE and FLIXONE SB, underscores the critical interplay of trademark infringement, passing off, and the procedural nuances of commercial litigation under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The High Court’s grant of an ex parte interim injunction highlights the urgency of protecting established brands from deceptive similarity, particularly in a sector where consumer confusion can have serious implications. This case study provides a comprehensive analysis of the factual and procedural background, legal issues, judicial reasoning, and the principles established, offering a deep dive into the dynamics of trademark protection in India.
Detailed Factual Background
Glaxo Group Limited, a UK-based subsidiary of GSK plc, a global healthcare giant operating since 1715, initiated this suit to protect its registered trademark FLIXONASE. Used since the 1990s globally and 2001 in India, FLIXONASE is applied to pharmaceutical preparations, specifically nasal sprays containing Fluticasone Propionate, for treating seasonal and perennial rhinitis, including hay fever. The trademark, registered in India under Registration No. 530885 in Class 5 since June 1, 1990, and renewed until June 1, 2034, enjoys extensive goodwill due to its long-standing use across over 150 countries.
The defendant, Arisen Pharmaceuticals India Private Limited, incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013, is engaged in manufacturing and marketing pharmaceutical products, including injections bearing the marks FLIXONE and FLIXONE SB. These products, containing Ceftriaxone and Sulbactam, are used to treat bacterial infections and are marketed through the defendant’s website (www.arisenpharma.com) and offline channels. The plaintiff first became aware of the defendant’s activities in January 2024 upon discovering a trademark application (No. 5892825) for FLIXONE in Class 5, filed on April 14, 2023, on a “proposed to be used” basis.
The plaintiff responded by issuing a cease-and-desist notice on February 23, 2024, and initiating opposition proceedings against the FLIXONE application on February 5, 2024. The defendant’s failure to file a counter-statement led to the application’s abandonment by the Trade Marks Registry on April 23, 2024. A subsequent letter on March 7, 2024, reserved the plaintiff’s rights to act against future use. Investigations in September 2024 revealed the defendant’s plans to market FLIXONE products, and by November 2024, the defendant had updated its website to include FLIXONE SB under a new antibiotics category. In December 2024, the plaintiff’s investigator purchased FLIXONE SB products, confirming active sales. Further cease-and-desist notices on December 16 and December 31, 2024, went unanswered. In January 2025, the plaintiff discovered another trademark application (No. 6656387) for FLIXONE SB, filed on October 5, 2024, still pending. A WhatsApp confirmation in March 2025 from a defendant director affirmed plans to supply FLIXONE products in Delhi.
The plaintiff argued that FLIXONE and FLIXONE SB were deceptively similar to FLIXONASE, differing only by the omission of the letters “A” and “S,” and were used for similar pharmaceutical goods, risking consumer confusion and free-riding on FLIXONASE’s reputation.
Detailed Procedural Background
The suit, registered as CS(COMM) 349/2025, was filed before the High Court of Delhi, accompanied by five interlocutory applications (I.A. 9750–9755/2025). On April 17, 2025, the court addressed these applications and the suit’s preliminary stages. I.A. 9751/2025 sought leave to file additional documents, which was granted under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. I.A. 9752/2025 requested exemptions from filing clear copies and originals, allowed with a directive to file compliant copies within four weeks. I.A. 9753/2025 sought exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, granted due to the suit’s urgent interim relief, citing Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Krithi. I.A. 9754/2025 permitted filing video evidence via CD/pen drive, and I.A. 9755/2025 allowed confidential sales data for FLIXONASE to be filed in a sealed cover.
The court registered the plaint as a suit, issued summons to the defendant via all permissible modes, and set a 30-day deadline for filing a written statement with an affidavit of admission/denial. The plaintiff was given 30 days to file a replication, and both parties were directed to file original documents or specify sources for documents not in their possession. The case was listed before the Joint Registrar on July 24, 2025, for service and pleading completion, and before the court on September 26, 2025.
The critical application, I.A. 9750/2025, sought an interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. Despite advance service, the defendant did not appear, leading to an ex parte hearing. The court issued notice on the injunction application, set timelines for reply and rejoinder, and granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using FLIXONE and FLIXONE SB marks until the next hearing.
Issues Involved in the Case
The case presented several key issues. First, whether the defendant’s FLIXONE and FLIXONE SB marks infringed the plaintiff’s registered FLIXONASE trademark by being deceptively similar and used for similar pharmaceutical goods. Second, whether the defendant’s actions constituted passing off by leveraging FLIXONASE’s goodwill. Third, whether the plaintiff satisfied the requirements for an ex parte interim injunction, including prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm. Fourth, whether procedural exemptions (e.g., pre-institution mediation, document filing) were justified under the Commercial Courts Act and CPC.
Detailed Submission of Parties
The plaintiff, represented by Mr. Urfee Roomi and others, argued that FLIXONASE, registered since 1990 and used in India since 2001, enjoyed significant goodwill due to its global and domestic presence. The defendant’s FLIXONE and FLIXONE SB marks, differing only by the removal of “A” and “S,” were deceptively similar, risking confusion among consumers, especially in the pharmaceutical sector where precision is critical. The plaintiff highlighted the identical nature of the goods (pharmaceutical preparations), the defendant’s marketing through online and offline channels, and the potential for public harm due to mistaken associations. The plaintiff’s proactive steps—cease-and-desist notices, opposition proceedings, and investigations—demonstrated diligence, while the defendant’s non-response and continued use underscored bad faith. The plaintiff sought an interim injunction, arguing a prima facie case, balance of convenience in its favor, and irreparable harm from ongoing infringement and consumer confusion.
The defendant, despite advance service, did not appear or file submissions, leaving the court to rely solely on the plaintiff’s pleadings and evidence. The absence of representation strengthened the plaintiff’s case, as no counterarguments or defenses were presented to challenge the allegations of infringement or passing off.
Detailed Discussion on Judgments and Citations
The court referenced one key precedent in its order, which was pivotal to the procedural aspect of the case:
Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Krithi (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1382): This Supreme Court decision was cited to justify exempting the plaintiff from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act. The Court held that suits requiring urgent interim relief are exempt from mandatory mediation to prevent delay in protecting rights. In the present case, the High Court applied this precedent to grant exemption, noting the plaintiff’s urgent need for an injunction to halt the defendant’s alleged infringement, which could cause immediate harm to FLIXONASE’s reputation and consumer trust.
No other judgments were cited, as the ex parte nature of the hearing and the straightforward trademark issues did not necessitate extensive precedent analysis. The court’s reliance on Yamini Manohar was sufficient to address the procedural exemption, while the substantive trademark issues were evaluated based on statutory provisions and pleaded facts.
Detailed Reasoning and Analysis of Judge
Justice Amit Bansal’s reasoning was concise yet robust, addressing both procedural and substantive issues with clarity. On the procedural front, the court efficiently disposed of the interlocutory applications. The exemption from pre-institution mediation was granted under Section 12A, aligning with Yamini Manohar, as the suit’s urgency—stemming from ongoing infringement—warranted immediate judicial intervention. The permissions to file additional documents, video evidence, and confidential data reflected adherence to the Commercial Courts Act’s flexible yet structured approach to evidence in commercial disputes. The directive to file clear copies within four weeks ensured compliance with procedural norms without delaying the suit’s progress.
On the substantive issue of the interim injunction, the court applied the classic triumvirate for granting interim relief: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm. The court found a prima facie case based on the deceptive similarity between FLIXONASE and FLIXONE/FLIXONE SB. The marks’ visual and phonetic proximity—differing only by two letters—and their use for pharmaceutical goods heightened the risk of confusion. The plaintiff’s long-standing use since 2001, global registrations, and registered status in India (valid until 2034) established FLIXONASE’s strong market presence and goodwill, which the defendant’s marks threatened to exploit. The defendant’s failure to respond to notices and continued marketing despite opposition proceedings suggested an intent to free-ride on FLIXONASE’s reputation.
The balance of convenience favored the plaintiff, as halting the defendant’s use would preserve the status quo without significant prejudice, given the defendant’s recent adoption of FLIXONE (post-2023). Conversely, allowing continued use would erode FLIXONASE’s distinctiveness and mislead consumers. The court recognized irreparable harm, particularly in the pharmaceutical context, where confusion could compromise public health and damage the plaintiff’s reputation irretrievably. The defendant’s non-appearance despite advance service further tilted the scales, as no countervailing factors were presented.
The injunction’s scope was comprehensive, restraining the defendant and its affiliates from manufacturing, selling, or marketing FLIXONE and FLIXONE SB products, whether online or offline. The court’s directive for compliance under Order XXXIX Rule 3 within five days ensured prompt enforcement, while the timelines for notice, reply, and rejoinder maintained procedural fairness for the defendant’s eventual response.
Final Decision
The High Court granted an ex parte interim injunction, restraining the defendant, its directors, and affiliates from using FLIXONE and FLIXONE SB marks or any deceptively similar marks for pharmaceutical products until the next hearing on September 26, 2025. The court disposed of the interlocutory applications, allowing document filings, exemptions, and mediation waiver as requested. Summons were issued, with a 30-day deadline for the defendant’s written statement and affidavit of admission/denial. The case was listed before the Joint Registrar on July 24, 2025, for service and pleading completion, and before the court on September 26, 2025, for further proceedings.
Law Settled in This Case
This case reinforced several principles in trademark law and commercial litigation. First, it affirmed that deceptively similar marks in the pharmaceutical sector, even with minor differences (e.g., omission of letters), constitute infringement and passing off when used for similar goods, due to the heightened risk of consumer confusion and public harm. Second, it underscored the judiciary’s willingness to grant ex parte interim injunctions in clear cases of infringement, particularly when the defendant fails to appear despite service, provided the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm. Third, the case clarified that urgent interim relief justifies exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, as per Yamini Manohar, ensuring swift protection of intellectual property rights. These principles strengthen trademark enforcement in India, particularly for global brands in sensitive sectors like healthcare.
Case Title: Glaxo Group Limited Vs. Arisen Pharmaceuticals India Private LimitedDate of Order: April 17, 2025
Case No.: CS(COMM) 349/2025
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Name of Judge: Justice Amit Bansal
No comments:
Post a Comment