Brief Introductory Head Note Summary of Case
This case involves a dispute over trademarks in the pharmaceutical industry, where a company claimed that another was copying its brand name for diabetes medications, leading to potential confusion among buyers. The court examined whether the similar-sounding names violated trademark laws and decided to protect the original brand by stopping the use of the copycat name temporarily while the full case proceeds.
Factual Background
The story begins with Laboratories Griffon Private Limited, a company established in 1947, which manufactures and sells medicines. Over time, its name changed, but it has been using the trademark "GLIMET" since 1992 for diabetes treatments. This mark was registered under an old law called the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. Later, in 1999, it also registered "GLIMET DS," a variant. The second plaintiff is a licensee, meaning it has permission to use these marks from the first plaintiff. To show how popular and established their products are, they provided sales figures: from April 2017 to March 2023, sales under "GLIMET" and "GLIMET DS" reached about Rs. 1.95 crore, and earlier figures for the second plaintiff from 2013-2014 were around Rs. 22.5 crore. They also shared invoices to prove ongoing sales.
In June 2024, the plaintiffs discovered similar products called "ELGIMET-SR 1/500" and "ELGIMET-SR 2/500" being sold online. They made a test purchase and found that Adwin Pharma (defendant no. 1) was the manufacturer, and another company (defendant no. 2) was marketing them. A check with the trademark office revealed that defendant no. 2 had applied for "ELGIMET" in August 2023, claiming it was new and not yet in use, but the application hadn't been advertised yet.
Procedural Detail
The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the Bombay High Court, specifically in its commercial intellectual property division, under Commercial IP Suit No. 225 of 2024. Along with the suit, they filed an interim application (numbered Interim Application (L) No. 27480 of 2024) asking for a temporary stop to the defendants' use of the similar marks while the main case is decided. On September 4, 2024, the court granted an ex-parte ad-interim relief, meaning without hearing the defendants first, to prevent trademark infringement and appointed a court receiver to oversee things.
Once notified, the defendants appeared. Defendant no. 1 (the manufacturer) said they wanted to settle peacefully with the plaintiffs and didn't oppose the temporary relief. Defendant no. 2 filed a written statement, which the court treated as their response to the application. The court heard arguments from both sides, reserved the order on November 10, 2025, and pronounced it on November 18, 2025.
Core Dispute
The main issue was whether the defendants' marks "ELGIMET," "ELGIMET-SR 1/500," and "ELGIMET-SR 2/500" were too similar to the plaintiffs' "GLIMET" and "GLIMET DS," amounting to trademark infringement or passing off their goods as the plaintiffs'. The plaintiffs argued for visual and sound similarity, especially risky in medicines where confusion could harm health. Defendant no. 2 denied similarity, claimed honest adoption, said the marks came from drug ingredients (not protectable), pointed to price differences (Rs. 7 vs. Rs. 70 for 10 tablets), and argued prescription drugs reduce confusion risks. They also questioned the court's jurisdiction and mentioned third-party similar marks and oppositions to the plaintiffs' registration.
Detailed Reasoning and Discussion by Court Including on Judgement with Complete Citation Referred and Discussed for Reasoning
The court started by outlining the facts and arguments. It noted that defendant no. 1 wasn't opposing, so the focus was on defendant no. 2's defenses.
First, on distinctiveness: Defendant no. 2 argued "GLIMET" is descriptive, coming from ingredients Glibenclamide/Glimepiride and Metformin, so no monopoly. The court disagreed, explaining the plaintiffs' mark was registered in Part A of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. It quoted Section 9 of that Act, which lists requirements for Part A registration: things like company names in special form, signatures, invented words, words with no direct reference to goods' quality, or other distinctive marks. "Distinctive" means the mark distinguishes the owner's goods from others. The court said this registration shows the mark is distinctive prima facie (at first glance). It clarified that while single ingredients like Glipizide or Metformin can't be monopolized, a unique blend like "GLIMET" (a portmanteau, or combined word) can be protected. Infinite ways exist to combine names, so copying a similar combo infringes.
Next, on similarity: The marks are "GLIMET"/"GLIMET DS" vs. "ELGIMET"/"ELGIMET-SR." The court said defendant no. 2 swapped the first letters of "GLIMET" and added "E." Testing for deceptive similarity considers an average buyer with imperfect memory. Phonetically, "ELGIMET" might sound like "gi-met," close to "gli-met." Less educated buyers might mispronounce, especially with ingredient-derived names. The court found structural and sound similarity prima facie.
To support this, the court referred to its own earlier order in Laboratories Griffon Private Limited and Anr. vs. Medieos Lifesciences LLP, Interim Application (L) No. 25004 of 2024, decided on July 16, 2025, where similar issues were discussed. It also summarized tests from the Supreme Court's judgment in Cadila Health Care Ltd. and Anr. vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73. In Cadila, the Supreme Court said: stricter tests for drugs with different side effects; vigilance for same-ailment drugs; public interest favors lower proof for confusion in medicines vs. other goods; many patients are elderly, illiterate, or infirm and can't differentiate; prescriptions don't fully prevent confusion due to India's diverse setup (language, urban-rural gaps); confusion test checks if ordinary consumers might mix up products; marks compared as wholes, not parts. The court applied these: both drugs treat diabetes, a widespread issue; even slight confusion risks health, so restrain use.
On defenses: Price difference (Rs. 7 vs. Rs. 70) doesn't divide buyers, as both sell via pharmacists. Being Schedule H (prescription) drugs isn't enough per Cadila. Defendant no. 2's adoption explanation (from "Elcliff," their company) was weak—why add "gimet" without "l"? Plaintiffs in industry since 1992, defendants likely knew. Application for "ELGIMET" was objected, not accepted. Third-party similar marks unproven, and anyway, others' infringement doesn't allow yours. Rectification by third parties irrelevant. Jurisdiction: Plaintiffs' office in Bombay, so under Section 134 of Trade Marks Act, 1999, court has power. Leave under Clause XIV of Letters Patent (Bombay) allows passing-off claim.
On balance: Plaintiffs' long use (1992), sales ~Rs. 25 crore; defendants new (2024), no sales proof. Infringement harms plaintiffs, so convenience favors them.
On passing off: Needs reputation, misrepresentation, damage. Reputation shown, but no prima facie misrepresentation (different packaging, prices). Relief denied here.
Defendant no. 2 cited cases in writings but not argued, so ignored.
Decision
The court confirmed the September 4, 2024, temporary relief as interim: defendants restrained from using "ELGIMET" variants or similar marks infringing "GLIMET"/"GLIMET DS" in any business activity. No passing-off relief. Suit continues.
Concluding Note
This judgment highlights how courts protect unique brand names in medicines to avoid health risks from confusion, even if marks aren't identical. It balances business interests with public safety, showing early registration and use give strong protection against copycats.
Case Title: Laboratoires Griffon Private Limited and Another Vs. Adwin Pharma and Another Order Date: 18 November, 2025 Case Number: Interim Application (L) No. 27480 of 2024 in Commercial IP Suit No. 225 of 2024 Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:21288 Name of Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction in its Commercial Division Name of Hon'ble Judge: Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
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
Suggested Titles for the Legal Analytical Article
- Protecting Pharmaceutical Trademarks: Analyzing Similarity and Infringement in Laboratories Griffon vs. Adwin Pharma
- Deceptive Similarity in Diabetes Drug Brands: A Deep Dive into the Bombay High Court's Ruling on GLIMET vs. ELGIMET
- Trademark Distinctiveness in Medicines: Lessons from the 2025 Bombay High Court Decision on Ingredient-Derived Marks
- Balancing Public Health and Brand Rights: The Interim Relief in Laboratories Griffon Private Limited's Infringement Case
- Phonetic Confusion in Pharma Trademarks: Judicial Scrutiny in the GLIMET-ELGIMET Dispute
Bombay High Court Grants Interim Relief in Trademark Battle Over Diabetes Drugs: In a significant ruling on intellectual property rights, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, through Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, on November 18, 2025, in the case titled Laboratoires Griffon Private Limited and Another vs. Adwin Pharma and Another (Interim Application (L) No. 27480 of 2024 in Commercial IP Suit No. 225 of 2024), confirmed temporary protection against alleged trademark infringement.
The dispute centers on Laboratories Griffon Private Limited, a pharmaceutical company established in 1947, which has used the trademarks "GLIMET" and "GLIMET DS" for diabetes medications since 1992. The company claimed that Adwin Pharma and its marketer were infringing these marks by selling similar products under "ELGIMET," "ELGIMET-SR 1/500," and "ELGIMET-SR 2/500," discovered online in June 2024. The plaintiffs argued phonetic and structural similarity could confuse consumers, especially in medicinal products where errors pose health risks.
The court found prima facie infringement, noting the plaintiffs' marks are distinctive portmanteaus derived from drug ingredients Glipizide and Metformin, registered under the old Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. It rejected defenses like price differences (Rs. 7 vs. Rs. 70 per strip) and prescription-only sales as insufficient to prevent confusion, citing Supreme Court precedents like Cadila Health Care Ltd. vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001) 5 SCC 73. However, it denied relief for passing off, finding no clear misrepresentation.
Adwin Pharma expressed intent to settle, while the marketer's application for "ELGIMET" (filed in 2023) was deemed subsequent and objected. The balance of convenience favored the plaintiffs due to their long-standing use and sales exceeding Rs. 25 crore, with no substantial proof from defendants.
The order restrains the defendants from using the impugned marks pending trial, underscoring judicial vigilance in pharma trademarks to safeguard public health.
Disclaimer: This is for general information only and should not be construed as legal advice as it may contain human errors in perception and presentation: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor (Patent & Trademark Attorney), High Court of Delhi
=====
No comments:
Post a Comment