Likelihood of confusion, even without actual confusion, is sufficient to grant injunction
**Head Note of the Case**
In this pharmaceutical trademark infringement suit, the High Court of Delhi granted a **permanent injunction** restraining Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited from using the mark ‘BEVATAS’ (Bevacizumab biosimilar for colorectal, ovarian, cervical, lung cancer and glioblastoma) which was held deceptively similar to Sun Pharma’s registered mark ‘BEVETEX’ (Paclitaxel for breast, non-small cell lung and pancreatic cancer). Despite different active ingredients, dosage forms, indications, prices and modes of administration, the Court applied the **strict Cadila test** for pharmaceutical marks, emphasising public health and the low threshold of confusion among doctors, pharmacists, nurses and patients. The Plaintiff’s registration since 1983 and use since 2015 established prior rights; the Defendant’s 2016 adoption (even if coined from the salt + house mark) was subsequent. Defences of non-use/hoarding, different molecules, Schedule-H nature, price differential, honest adoption and lack of actual confusion were rejected. The Court held that likelihood of confusion (not actual confusion) is sufficient, especially for life-saving cancer drugs.
**Introduction**
The present case is a classic pharmaceutical trademark infringement battle between two leading Indian generic/biosimilar manufacturers. Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited (Plaintiff) sought a permanent injunction, damages and other reliefs against Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited (Defendant) for alleged infringement of its registered trademark ‘BEVETEX’, passing off, unfair competition and dilution. The suit concerns two anti-cancer injectable drugs used in oncology but containing entirely different active pharmaceutical ingredients. The judgment, delivered on **28 March 2026** by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia in CS(COMM) 39/2023, is a detailed 34-page reasoned decision after full trial, granting permanent injunction to the Plaintiff while deciding all key issues in its favour.
**Factual Background**
The Plaintiff is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, one of India’s largest pharmaceutical companies with global operations in over 150 countries. The Plaintiff coined and registered the mark **BEVETEX** in 1983 (Trade Mark No. 410744 dated 16.09.1983, Class 5) for medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations. The drug under BEVETEX is **Paclitaxel** (a synthetic chemical cytotoxic agent/microtubule inhibitor) used for treatment of metastatic breast cancer, non-small cell lung cancer and pancreatic cancer. The Plaintiff launched the product in 2015, incurred substantial promotional expenses (₹53.79 Lac approx. in 2015-17) and achieved sales of ₹1076.06 Lac in the same period. The mark is an invented word and inherently distinctive.
The Defendant adopted the mark **BEVATAS** (applied for registration in 2016 on proposed-to-use basis, opposed by Plaintiff) for its biosimilar **Bevacizumab** (a monoclonal antibody/anti-angiogenic agent, rDNA product). The Defendant’s drug is used for colorectal cancer, ovarian cancer, cervical cancer, lung cancer and recurrent glioblastoma. The Defendant launched the product in October 2016 (or 2017 as per Plaintiff’s knowledge) after obtaining DCGI approvals in June-July 2016. The Defendant claimed the mark was coined by combining “BEVA” (from Bevacizumab) + “TAS” (from its house mark INTAS).
Both products are Schedule-H (prescription-only) injectable vials administered by IV infusion in oncology settings under specialist supervision, but they belong to different pharmacological classes, have different dosages, reconstitution methods, infusion times, toxicity profiles and non-overlapping primary indications (with some overlap in lung/breast cancer contexts).
**Procedural Background**
The suit was originally filed before the District Judge, Saket Courts, Delhi. On 02.01.2018 the Trial Court refused ex-parte ad-interim injunction citing public interest in cancer drugs. After hearing both sides, the Trial Court vide order dated 17.09.2018 dismissed the Order XXXIX application, finding no prima facie case. Issues were framed on 17.12.2018 (11 issues covering registration, prior use, infringement, confusion, hoarding, authorisation, delay/laches, cause of action, etc.).
The Plaintiff’s appeal (FAO 447/2018) was dismissed by the High Court on 09.01.2020. The SLP (No. 3385/2020) was also dismissed on 14.02.2020 with a direction that the Trial Court decide the suit uninfluenced by High Court observations. The Plaintiff thereafter revalued the suit and got it transferred to the High Court. Evidence was led, documents exhibited (including Power of Attorney as Ex. PW-1/1), and final arguments concluded. Judgment was reserved on 01.12.2025 and pronounced on 28.03.2026.
**Core Dispute**
Whether the Defendant’s use of ‘BEVATAS’ for its Bevacizumab injection amounts to **infringement** of the Plaintiff’s registered mark ‘BEVETEX’ under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and passing off, given the structural, phonetic and visual similarity of the marks, even though the drugs contain different active ingredients and treat partially different cancers. Ancillary issues included alleged hoarding/non-use of the Plaintiff’s mark since 1983, honest adoption by Defendant, effect of Schedule-H status, price difference, and whether public health concerns justify injunction despite specialist administration.
**Arguments Raised by Both Parties**
**Plaintiff’s Arguments**:
- Statutory rights under registration since 1983 give exclusive use; Defendant’s mark is deceptively similar structurally, phonetically and visually (common “BEVE”/“BEVA” prefix + similar ending).
- Likelihood of confusion is high in oncology setting; patients/attendants/chemists/nurses may confuse the drugs due to imperfect recollection, illegible prescriptions and inability to pronounce complex salts.
- Both are cancer drugs administered by IV infusion in similar vials; wrong drug can be fatal (different toxicity profiles).
- Public interest demands injunction to prevent disastrous consequences (reliance on *Cadila Healthcare v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals*).
- Section 29(3) presumption of confusion applies; strict test in pharma cases.
- No hoarding – registration itself suffices; deemed use concept; no rectification application filed by Defendant.
- Suit filed promptly upon knowledge in Dec 2017; no delay/laches.
**Defendant’s Arguments:
- Marks must be compared as a whole – BEVETEX vs BEVATAS are visually, structurally and phonetically dissimilar (different prefix phonetics BEVE vs BEVA, endings TEX vs TAS; different labels).
- Different molecules (Paclitaxel synthetic vs Bevacizumab biosimilar), different indications, reconstitution, infusion times, dosages, toxicity and prices (Defendant’s drug 3x costlier).
- Both Schedule-H drugs administered only by super-specialist oncologists in hospitals – no scope for confusion.
- Defendant coined mark honestly from salt + house mark INTAS; prior user since 2016 with regulatory approvals.
- Plaintiff hoarded the mark (registered 1983, used only from 2015) – no goodwill; *Neon Laboratories* cited.
- Plaintiff’s sales/turnover lower than Defendant’s; no evidence of actual confusion or goodwill.
- No infringement/passing off; suit barred by delay, unclean hands and manufactured cause of action (Plaintiff knew of launch since 2016 via opposition).
**Judgement with Complete Citations and Their Context Referred in Reasoning of Judge**
The Court decided the suit issue-wise after detailed analysis of evidence and law.
**Issue Nos. 1 & 2 (Registration & Prior Use)**: Plaintiff proved registration in 1983 and use since 2015 with documentary/oral evidence. Mark is invented and inherently distinctive. Defendant’s use (2016) is subsequent. Issues decided in Plaintiff’s favour (paras 11-14).
**Issue Nos. 9 & 10 (Defendant’s Proprietorship/Honest Prior Use)**: Defendant’s adoption in 2016 is subsequent to Plaintiff’s registration (1983) and use (2015). Even if coined from salt + house mark, it is not prior use. Honest subsequent use is no defence to infringement. Issues decided in Plaintiff’s favour (paras 15-18).
**Issue Nos. 3 & 4 (Infringement & Likelihood of Confusion)**: The core reasoning.
- Marks compared as a **whole** (anti-dissection rule) – structurally and phonetically similar; first and last syllables almost identical (*United Biotech v. Orchid Chemicals*, 2012 (50) PTC 433 (Del) (DB) – overall impression of ordinary shopper, not technical dissection).
- Common prefix ‘BEV’/‘BEVA’ not exclusively claimed by Plaintiff, but overall mark is deceptively similar. “Common to register” does not prove “common to trade” (*Century Traders v. Roshan Lal Duggar*, AIR 1978 Del 250; *Pankaj Goel v. Dabur India Ltd.*, 2008 (38) PTC 49 (Del)).
- Pharma-specific strict test: *Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.*, AIR 2001 SC 1952 – stricter approach in pharmaceutical cases; courts must ensure no likelihood of confusion; public health paramount; even Schedule-H drugs sold without prescription in practice; doctors/pharmacists/patients may confuse.
- Likelihood (not actual) confusion sufficient; Section 29(3) presumption. Confusion dangerous when marks used for different ailments (*Novartis v. Crest Pharma*, 2009 (41) PTC 57 (Del); *Charak Pharma v. Glenmark*, 2014 (57) PTC 538 (Bom); *Sun Pharma v. Glenmark*, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3786).
- Consumer not expected to know salts/compounds; imperfect recollection test (*Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd.*, AIR 1960 SC 142).
- Risk exists at prescribing, dispensing and purchase stages, not only specialist level. Price/molecule differences do not eliminate confusion in oncology setting.
- Issues decided in Plaintiff’s favour; infringement established (paras 19-29).
**Issue No. 5 (Hoarding/Non-Use)**: Section 47 allows rectification for non-use but Defendant never applied. Registration subsists; rights under Section 28(1) protected. Actual use not required to be proved in infringement suit (*Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co.*, (1995) 5 SCC 545; *Wockhardt Ltd. v. Eden Healthcare*, 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 163). *Neon Laboratories* misplaced. Issue decided in Plaintiff’s favour (paras 30-33).
Other issues (delay, authorisation, cause of action) also decided in Plaintiff’s favour on facts/evidence.
**The Final Decision of Court**
The suit is **decreed**. A permanent injunction is granted restraining the Defendant, its directors, servants, agents, etc., from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising or dealing in any pharmaceutical preparation under the mark ‘BEVATAS’ or any deceptively similar mark. The Defendant is directed to deliver up or destroy all infringing material. Costs and other reliefs (rendition of accounts/damages) were not pressed by Plaintiff in public interest; limited relief of injunction granted. All issues decided in favour of the Plaintiff.
**Point of Law Settled in the Case**
1. In pharmaceutical trademark cases, a **stricter approach** must be adopted; likelihood of confusion (even without actual confusion) is sufficient to grant injunction, especially for life-saving drugs (*Cadila Healthcare* principle reaffirmed and applied rigorously).
2. Registration alone confers statutory rights under Section 28(1); non-use/hoarding is not a defence in infringement suit unless the mark is actually removed via rectification under Section 47.
3. Marks must be compared as a **whole** (anti-dissection rule); minor differences or common prefixes derived from salts do not save a deceptively similar mark.
4. Different active ingredients, indications, prices, Schedule-H status or specialist administration do **not** mitigate confusion risk in oncology drugs; public health overrides such factors.
5. Honest/coined adoption or higher sales by defendant is irrelevant if the mark infringes a prior registered mark.
6. Cause of action in infringement arises upon knowledge of infringing use; opposition to registration does not bar subsequent suit.
Case Detail: Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited Vs Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited
Date of Order: 28 March 2026
Case Number: CS(COMM) 39/2023
Neutral Citation:2026:DHC:2601
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon’ble Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia
**Suggested Titles for YouTube Explainer Video**
1. “BEVETEX vs BEVATAS: Sun Pharma Wins Big! Delhi HC Grants Permanent Injunction in Pharma Trademark War”
2. “Why Delhi High Court Stopped Intas from Using BEVATAS – Full BEVETEX Infringement Judgment Explained”
3. “Cadila Rule Applied Strictly: Sun Pharma v Intas Cancer Drug Trademark Case Breakdown (2026)”
4. “Different Molecules but Still Infringement? Delhi HC Pharma Trademark Ruling on BEVETEX vs BEVATAS”
5. “Hoarding Defence Rejected: Sun Pharma Beats Intas in Landmark Cancer Drug Name Battle”
6. “Public Health Wins: Delhi HC Permanent Injunction in BEVATAS Infringement Case – Full Analysis”
7. “BEVETEX Protected! Why Different Cancer Drugs Can’t Have Similar Names – Justice Tejas Karia Judgment”
These titles are SEO-optimised, highlight the drama, key legal principle (Cadila) and outcome while clearly indicating an explainer format.
No comments:
Post a Comment