Sun Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. Vs Meghmani Life Sciences

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited filed a commercial IP suit against Meghmani Lifesciences Limited and another for trademark infringement and passing off alleging defendant's mark 'EsiRaft' deceptively similar to plaintiff's registered 'RACIRAFT' both used for identical oral suspension products containing Sodium Alginate Sodium Bicarbonate and Calcium Carbonate treating heartburn and indigestion with plaintiff adopting mark in January 2022 securing Class 5 registration and achieving sales of 11.85 crores in 2022-2023 and 24.49 crores in 2023-2024 while defendant No1 markets and No2 manufactures the impugned product since July 2024. Procedurally ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted on 7 April 2025 restraining defendants from using the mark after which defendant sought vacation under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC but the interim application was heard finally with consent reserved on 9 December 2025 and pronounced on 23 December 2025. The court reasoned applying principles of deceptive similarity under Trade Marks Act 1999 including anti-dissection rule holistic comparison visual structural and phonetic assessment that marks are dissimilar with distinct prefixes RACI vs Esi and common descriptive suffix RAFT indicating foam-forming property from sodium alginate providing plausible defense for adoption two-color depiction common to trade not deceptive by itself no dishonest adoption given defendant's cogent explanation for Esi no prima facie case for infringement or passing off under Cadila factors considering dissimilar get-up no confusion likelihood and defendant's prior use without acquiescence. The court vacated the ad-interim relief dismissed the interim application but extended the relief for one week from order upload date.

• In determining deceptive similarity of pharmaceutical trademarks, courts must apply the anti-dissection rule and conduct a holistic visual, structural, and phonetic comparison of marks as a whole, where a common descriptive suffix like 'RAFT' indicating product properties (foam formation from sodium alginate) does not render marks similar if prefixes are distinct [Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited vs Meghmani Lifesciences Limited and Another, Interim Application (L) No.9484 of 2025 in Commercial IP (L) No.353 of 2025, Paras 20, 23].
• Use of a descriptive term such as 'RAFT' for raft-forming antacids constitutes a plausible defense against claims of dishonest adoption, and two-color combinations common to the trade do not by themselves establish deceptive similarity absent overall confusion [Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited vs Meghmani Lifesciences Limited and Another, Interim Application (L) No.9484 of 2025 in Commercial IP (L) No.353 of 2025, Paras 19, 31].
• For passing off actions involving unregistered trademarks, the factors outlined in Cadila Health Care Ltd. vs Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001) 5 SCC 73—including nature of marks, resemblance, goods, purchasers, purchase mode, and surrounding circumstances—must be considered with variable weightage based on case facts, and absence of resemblance precludes relief [Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited vs Meghmani Lifesciences Limited and Another, Interim Application (L) No.9484 of 2025 in Commercial IP (L) No.353 of 2025, Para 34].

Case Title: Sun Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. Vs Meghmani Life Sciences:23.12.2025:Commercial IP Suit No. .353 of 2025: Bombay HC:Sharmila U. Deshmukh

[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]

[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]