Case Title: Jamp India Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jubilant Generics Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 13332 of 2024
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:15847
Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, Commercial Division)
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Bharati Dangre
Order Pronounced On: October 9, 2025
---
FACTS
This case arises out of a dispute between two pharmaceutical companies concerning the alleged infringement of a registered trademark and the claim of deceptive similarity between medicinal products. The plaintiff, Jamp India Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., part of the Canadian Jamp Pharma Group, is a pharmaceutical company engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing medicines under various brand names. The plaintiff claimed to be the registered proprietor of the mark “JAMPIDINE”, used for a pharmaceutical product containing the active ingredient Lamotrigine, prescribed for treating epilepsy and bipolar disorder. The trademark “JAMPIDINE” was duly registered under Class 5 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 in India.
The defendant, Jubilant Generics Ltd., is also a reputed pharmaceutical company based in India and part of the Jubilant Group, a well-known entity in the healthcare industry. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had recently launched a product under the name “LAMIDINE”, which, according to the plaintiff, was deceptively similar in sound, structure, and idea to their registered mark “JAMPIDINE.” The plaintiff argued that the suffix “-DINE” in both marks was identical and that the defendants’ use of the prefix “LAMI” was insufficient to distinguish the marks, particularly when both products contained Lamotrigine and were intended for the same therapeutic use.
The plaintiff contended that due to the phonetic and structural similarity between “JAMPIDINE” and “LAMIDINE,” there was a strong likelihood of confusion among consumers, pharmacists, and medical practitioners, especially in a country where prescriptions are often handwritten and subject to misreading. The plaintiff also emphasized that confusion in the field of medicine could have life-threatening consequences, and therefore, pharmaceutical trademarks must be subject to stricter standards of differentiation.
---
PROCEDURAL DETAILS
The plaintiff filed the present commercial intellectual property suit under Sections 29, 134, and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking an injunction to restrain the defendants from manufacturing, selling, advertising, or dealing in medicinal products bearing the mark “LAMIDINE.” The plaintiff also claimed damages and prayed for delivery up of infringing goods and packaging.
The defendants filed their written statement and reply opposing the interim injunction. They denied any infringement and asserted that “LAMIDINE” was derived from the active ingredient Lamotrigine, which they lawfully manufactured under a valid license granted by the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI). They argued that the prefix “LAMI” was derived from the generic drug name and was common to the trade in medicines containing Lamotrigine. According to them, the suffix “-DINE” was also descriptive and commonly used in pharmaceutical nomenclature, and therefore, the plaintiff could not claim exclusivity over it. The defendants submitted that there was no dishonest intent in adopting their mark and that no confusion had arisen in actual trade.
The Court heard detailed submissions from both sides. The plaintiff relied upon several precedents to demonstrate that minor phonetic similarities in medicinal products can be dangerous and that the courts have consistently applied a higher threshold of distinctiveness in pharmaceutical trademarks. The defendants, on the other hand, relied on case law emphasizing that generic or descriptive elements of a mark cannot be monopolized and that the overall impression of the mark must be considered rather than dissected parts.
---
DISPUTE
The central issue before the Court was whether the defendant’s mark “LAMIDINE” infringed upon the plaintiff’s registered mark “JAMPIDINE” under Section 29(2)(b) and (c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which deal with deceptive similarity leading to confusion. The question also involved whether the use of a mark derived from the active ingredient of the drug (Lamotrigine) could be considered bona fide and whether the plaintiff’s claim of exclusivity over the suffix “-DINE” was legally sustainable.
The dispute, therefore, revolved around the balance between protecting trademark rights and preventing monopolization of common pharmaceutical expressions, while ensuring patient safety and avoiding confusion in the medicinal field.
---
DETAILED REASONING AND ANALYSIS
Justice Bharati Dangre delivered a detailed and nuanced judgment analyzing the competing claims. The Court began by reaffirming that in pharmaceutical cases, the test of deceptive similarity must be applied with special caution because confusion between medicinal products can have serious health implications. The Court referred to the landmark Supreme Court decision in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73, where it was held that in pharmaceutical trademarks, even a possibility of confusion is unacceptable, and the test must be applied with heightened sensitivity.
The Court then examined the visual, structural, and phonetic similarities between the two marks “JAMPIDINE” and “LAMIDINE.” It observed that both marks ended with the same suffix “-DINE” and had a similar rhythmic structure. The prefix “JAMPI” and “LAMI” shared a similar phonetic sound when spoken quickly, and the Court acknowledged that Indian consumers, especially in rural areas or small towns, may not pay close attention to minor spelling differences when purchasing medicines. Therefore, from a phonetic perspective, there was a reasonable likelihood of confusion.
However, the Court also carefully analyzed the origin and distinctiveness of the elements of the marks. It noted that the prefix “LAMI” was directly derived from the active ingredient “Lamotrigine,” which is the International Non-Proprietary Name (INN) for the drug. INNs are public property under the World Health Organization (WHO) framework, and pharmaceutical companies are prohibited from claiming trademark rights over them or their derivatives. Citing Cipla Ltd. v. MK Pharmaceuticals (2008 (36) PTC 166 (Mad)), the Court reiterated that the use of an INN-derived prefix cannot be monopolized, as it serves the purpose of identifying the chemical composition of a drug rather than its trade origin.
The Court then turned to the plaintiff’s claim of exclusivity over the suffix “-DINE.” It referred to several earlier decisions, including Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. v. Wyeth Holdings Corp. (2005 (30) PTC 1 (Del)) and Win-Medicare Pvt. Ltd. v. Galpha Laboratories Ltd. (2008 (38) PTC 307 (Del)), which held that common suffixes like “-CIN,” “-DINE,” or “-MOL,” commonly used in the pharmaceutical industry, are descriptive or indicative of the therapeutic use and therefore cannot be monopolized. Justice Dangre held that since the suffix “-DINE” was generic and descriptive, it could not form the dominant feature of the plaintiff’s mark.
The Court also considered the nature of the consumer base. Citing Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta (AIR 1963 SC 449), it emphasized that while the test of an average consumer applies, in the case of medicines, even an unwary or careless consumer must be protected. Yet, the Court also stressed that the pharmaceutical trade is largely professionalized, with drugs being prescribed by doctors and dispensed by chemists, which reduces the possibility of confusion when the active ingredient is known.
Justice Dangre noted that the defendants’ packaging, color scheme, and trade dress were distinctly different from the plaintiff’s, which further diminished the likelihood of confusion. The plaintiff had failed to produce any evidence of actual confusion or instances of mistaken sale. Moreover, the plaintiff had only recently entered the Indian market and had not shown substantial sales or reputation under the mark “JAMPIDINE” in India before filing the suit. The Court held that without demonstrating significant goodwill or reputation, the plaintiff could not claim that the public associated “-DINE” marks exclusively with it.
The Court also discussed Section 30(2)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which provides a defense of bona fide descriptive use. Since “LAMIDINE” was derived from “Lamotrigine,” the defendants’ adoption was considered bona fide and not intended to deceive. The Court found no mala fide intent or dishonest imitation.
Ultimately, Justice Dangre concluded that while the two marks shared some phonetic resemblance, the overall impression was not deceptive enough to warrant injunctive relief, especially since the defendants’ use of the mark was bona fide, descriptive, and derived from the active ingredient’s name. The Court held that the suffix “-DINE” being common in pharmaceutical trade, the plaintiff could not claim monopoly over it.
---
DECISION
The Bombay High Court refused to grant an interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff. Justice Bharati Dangre held that the defendants’ use of “LAMIDINE” did not infringe upon the plaintiff’s trademark “JAMPIDINE” under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, as the similarity was not sufficient to cause deception or confusion among consumers in the trade. The Court recognized the bona fide nature of the defendants’ adoption and emphasized that descriptive or INN-derived elements of a mark cannot be monopolized.
The Court observed that pharmaceutical trademarks must strike a balance between exclusivity and public interest, ensuring that companies do not unjustly monopolize terms that are part of the common medical vocabulary. As a result, the plaintiff’s application for interim injunction was dismissed, with liberty to proceed to trial for full adjudication of rights.
---
SUGGESTED TITLES FOR PUBLICATION
1. “When Medicine Names Collide: The Bombay High Court on Pharmaceutical Trademark Confusion”
2. “Jampidene vs. Lamidine: The Limits of Exclusivity in Drug Naming under Indian Trademark Law”
3. “Pharmaceutical Trademarks and Public Interest: Lessons from Jamp India v. Jubilant Generics”
4. “The Dine Dilemma: Balancing Trademark Rights and Generic Use in Medicines”
5. “Confusion or Coincidence? Understanding Trademark Law through JAMPIDINE and LAMIDINE”
---
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
No comments:
Post a Comment