Saga Lifesciences Limited Vs M/s Anaadi Global Co

Export constitutes use in India for infringement and passing-off

Head Note of the Case

In this trademark infringement and passing-off suit, the High Court of Delhi granted an ad-interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC restraining the defendants from using the mark “HALESAGA / HALE’SAGA” (or any deceptively similar mark) in relation to pharmaceutical, medicinal and nutraceutical preparations in Class 05. The Court held that the Impugned Mark is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s long-established and registered mark “SAGA”, with “SAGA” forming the dominant and essential feature. Triple identity (identical/similar marks, identical goods, identical trade channels via e-commerce) was established. Export sales were held to constitute “use” in India under Section 56 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Defences of honest adoption, distinct consumer base, non-use in domestic market, estoppel from Reply to Examination Report, and lack of territorial jurisdiction were rejected. Prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury were found in favour of the Plaintiff.

Introduction

This is a classic trademark infringement and passing-off dispute in the pharmaceutical and nutraceutical sector. Saga Lifesciences Limited (Plaintiff), a company established in 1981, sought an interim injunction against M/s Anaadi Global Co. & Anr. (Defendants) for using the mark “HALESAGA / HALE’SAGA” (Impugned Mark) in respect of goods identical or similar to those sold under the Plaintiff’s well-known mark “SAGA”. The judgment, delivered on 28 March 2026 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia in CS(COMM) 574/2023 (along with I.A. 15667/2023 & I.A. 19731/2023), is a detailed 22-page reasoned order granting ad-interim injunction after hearing both sides. The case highlights principles of deceptive similarity, triple identity, territorial jurisdiction in e-commerce cases, and the effect of export sales under Section 56 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Factual Background

The Plaintiff is an Indian pharmaceutical company established in 1981. On 01.05.1981, through its predecessor, it adopted the mark “SAGA” (“Subject Mark”) as part of its trade name and has continuously used it for pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations, nutraceutical products, dietetic substances adapted for medical use, and cosmetics. The Plaintiff owns multiple registrations/applications for “SAGA” and its formative marks (e.g., SAGAFIXIM, SAGACOXIB, SAGAPDIN, SAGAMOL, SAGAPANTO, SAGAFO SA, SAGAFORM, SAGASARTAN) primarily in Class 05. Key registration: Application No. 3482073 dated 14.02.2017 (user claimed since 01.05.1981) registered in Class 05 for medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations.

The Plaintiff’s products are exported to various countries (Vietnam, Togo, Kazakhstan, etc.), with substantial turnover (₹109,22,42,602 in FY 2021-2022 under the Subject Mark). The Plaintiff claims the mark has acquired immense reputation and goodwill.

The Defendants (Defendant No. 1 – M/s Anaadi Global Co.) adopted the Impugned Mark “HALESAGA / HALE’SAGA” (with a device/logo) and filed applications in Classes 03 & 05 (Application No. 5059298 dated 26.07.2021 – proposed to be used; later applications Nos. 5171554 & 5171547 dated 13.10.2021 claiming user since 01.08.2021). The Defendants claimed the mark was coined by combining “HALE” (meaning healthy/hearty) + “SAGA” (meaning a long story) to convey “maintaining good health is a long-term process”. The Defendants sell nutraceutical/health supplements (protein powder, pre-workout, etc.) through e-commerce platforms (Flipkart, Amazon) with claimed sales of ₹1.16 Cr+ and significant advertisement spend.

The Plaintiff opposed the Defendants’ applications (oppositions filed, some pending/rectification filed). The Plaintiff alleged the Defendants were riding on its goodwill by prominently featuring “SAGA” in the Impugned Mark.

Procedural Background

The Plaintiff filed the suit CS(COMM) 574/2023 seeking permanent injunction for infringement, passing off, etc. Along with the suit, it moved I.A. 15667/2023 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for ad-interim injunction. I.A. 19731/2023 is also mentioned (likely related to additional relief/documents). Both sides were represented (Mr. Vikas Khera for Plaintiff; Mr. Anshuman Upadhyay for Defendant No. 1). The matter was heard at length. The Court passed a detailed interim order on 28.03.2026 disposing of the injunction application.

Core Dispute

Whether the Defendants’ use of “HALESAGA / HALE’SAGA” for pharmaceutical/medicinal/nutraceutical preparations amounts to infringement of the Plaintiff’s registered “SAGA” mark and passing off, entitling the Plaintiff to an ad-interim injunction. Key issues included: deceptive similarity (dominant “SAGA”), triple identity, territorial jurisdiction (e-commerce sales in Delhi), effect of export sales under Section 56, honest adoption defence, estoppel from Reply to Examination Report, and balance of convenience.

Arguments Raised by Both Parties

Plaintiff’s Arguments:

Long continuous use since 1981 + multiple registrations/applications; “SAGA” is arbitrary/distinctive for the goods.

Impugned Mark is deceptively similar – entire “SAGA” is subsumed; “HALE” is descriptive; apostrophe and colour give “SAGA” dominant position.

Goods identical/similar (Class 05 pharma/nutraceuticals); same trade channels (e-commerce); triple identity.

Export sales constitute “use” in India under Section 56 (application in India to goods exported).

Defendants’ adoption dishonest – attempt to ride on Plaintiff’s goodwill.

Confusion inevitable among trade/public.

Plaintiff not claiming relief in Class 03 cosmetics at interim stage.

No estoppel – Reply to Examination Report (where “SAGA” was distinguished from other marks) does not cover Impugned Mark; inadvertent error by erstwhile attorney.

Defendants’ Arguments :

Honest adoption – “HALE” (healthy) + “SAGA” (long story) coined as composite mark with device/apostrophe; unique combination.

“SAGA” is a common English word (long story), not coined; many third-party users; no acquired distinctiveness.

Plaintiff uses “SAGA” only as house mark/device, not standalone; products exported only, not sold in domestic Indian market → no goodwill/reputation in India.

Different goods (Defendants: nutraceuticals/health supplements; Plaintiff: pharma); different purchasing public and trade channels.

No likelihood of confusion – products not identical; no domestic overlap.

Plaintiff’s registration in Ahmedabad; business in Surat → no territorial jurisdiction in Delhi (mere e-commerce availability insufficient).

Estoppel – Plaintiff in Reply to Examination Report distinguished “SAGA” from similar marks, cannot now claim similarity.

Delay – Plaintiff knew since 2022 but filed suit in 2023.

Balance of convenience against injunction; irreparable harm to Defendants.

Judgement with Complete Citations and Their Context Referred in Reasoning of Judge

The Court analysed jurisdiction first, then deceptive similarity, likelihood of confusion, passing off, and other defences.

Territorial Jurisdiction (paras 7–11):

Rejected Defendant’s plea. Products available in Delhi via e-commerce platforms (Flipkart, Amazon). “Principle of dynamic effect and mere looming presence on the internet” confers jurisdiction. Section 20 CPC satisfied as cause of action arises in part in Delhi. No need for specific targeting pleaded.

Deceptive Similarity (paras 12–20):

Restricted relief to Class 05 only (Class 03 registration irrelevant).

Impugned Mark subsumes entire “SAGA”; mere prefix “HALE” (descriptive) + apostrophe + colour does not distinguish. “SAGA” given dominant position.

Prima facie deceptively similar for pharmaceutical/medicinal/nutraceutical preparations.

“SAGA” arbitrary (not descriptive of goods) despite being dictionary word.

Likelihood of Confusion & Triple Identity (paras 21–24):

Goods identical/similar; trade channels identical (e-commerce).

Export use deemed “use” in India under Section 56(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 – “The application in India of trade mark to goods to be exported from India … shall be deemed to constitute use of the trade mark”. Cited and applied Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Sami Khatib of Mumbai, 2011 SCC OnLine Bom 484 (export sales satisfy infringement/passing-off requirements).

Passing Off (paras 25–27):

Substantial goodwill proved by ₹109 Cr+ turnover (FY 2021-22) + continuous use since 1981 + invoices.

Dishonest adoption – implausible Defendants unaware of Plaintiff’s mark.

Likelihood of confusion → misrepresentation → damage to goodwill.

Reply to Examination Report Defence (paras 28–30):

Rejected. Principle of approbate-reprobate/estoppel applies only when cited mark in Examination Report is the same as later impugned mark. Here, Impugned Mark was never cited in Plaintiff’s 2017 Examination Report. No concession regarding HALESAGA.

Conclusion & Balance of Convenience (paras 31–34):

Prima facie case established.

“This is a case of triple identity” (deceptively similar marks + identical product category + identical trade channels/consumer base).

Balance of convenience and irreparable injury favour Plaintiff.

Injunction granted during pendency of suit.

The Final Decision of Court

I.A. 15667/2023 is allowed. During pendency of the suit, the Defendants, their proprietors, partners, agents, representatives, distributors, assigns, heirs, successors and all others acting for/on their behalf are restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly/indirectly dealing in pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations under Class 05 under the Impugned Mark “HALESAGA / HALE’SAGA” or any other mark identical with or deceptively similar to Plaintiff’s “SAGA” mark, so as to cause infringement and/or passing off. The application stands disposed of. (No interim relief in Class 03 cosmetics pressed.)

Point of Law Settled in the Case

Export sales constitute “use” in India under Section 56(1) for infringement and passing-off actions (Cadila Pharmaceuticals v. Sami Khatib applied).

Triple identity (similar marks + identical/similar goods + same trade channels) strongly supports injunction in pharma/nutraceutical cases.

Mere addition of a descriptive prefix (“HALE”) + apostrophe/device does not avoid deceptive similarity when the plaintiff’s mark (“SAGA”) is the dominant/essential feature.

E-commerce availability in the Court’s territory confers territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 CPC (dynamic effect of internet sales).

Estoppel/approbate-reprobate from Reply to Examination Report applies only to the specific cited marks; not to a later-adopted unrelated Impugned Mark.

Dictionary/common words can still be arbitrary/distinctive when used for unrelated goods; no automatic descriptiveness defence.

Case Title: Saga Lifesciences Limited Vs M/s Anaadi Global Co. & Anr.

Date of Order: 28 March 2026

Case Number: CS(COMM) 574/2023

Neutral Citation:2026:DHC:2600

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi

Name of Hon’ble Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia

Suggested Titles for YouTube Explainer Video

“SAGA vs HALESAGA: Delhi HC Grants Injunction in Pharma Trademark Copycat Case – Full Breakdown”

“Why ‘HALE’SAGA’ Got Restrained by Delhi High Court – SAGA Lifesciences Victory Explained”

“Triple Identity in Trademark Law: Saga Lifesciences v. Anaadi Global – Detailed Judgment Analysis”

“Export Sales = Use in India? Section 56 Explained in HALESAGA Injunction Case (2026)”

“Delhi HC Stops ‘HALE’SAGA’ – Deceptive Similarity & E-Commerce Jurisdiction Ruling”

“SAGA Trademark Protected: Honest Adoption Defence Rejected by Justice Tejas Karia”

“Pharma Trademark War: Why Adding ‘HALE’ Didn’t Save HALESAGA – Full Legal Explainer”