In Reddy Pharmaceuticals v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. & Anr., the High Court of Delhi on 18 May 2026 in RFA(OS) 138/2013 and connected W.P.(C) 654/2014, delivered a common judgment by the Division Bench comprising Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla. The Court upheld the learned Single Judge’s decree dated 13.09.2013, which had granted a permanent injunction restraining Reddy Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (RPL) from using the mark “REDDY” in relation to pharmaceutical products, finding it amounted to passing off.
Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) claimed that its long and continuous use of the trading style “Dr. Reddy’s” had caused the expression “REDDY” to acquire distinctiveness and secondary meaning exclusively associated with DRL. RPL contended that “REDDY” was a common surname forming part of its bona fide corporate name and house mark, adopted honestly by its Managing Director. The Court held that DRL’s prior adoption and extensive use conferred superior common law rights, and RPL’s use was likely to cause confusion in the pharmaceutical trade. The IPAB’s order for rectification of the Register by removal of RPL’s “REDDY” registration was also sustained. The appeals and writ petition were accordingly dismissed.
Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors. Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
#DelhiHighCourt, #TrademarkPassingOff, #ReddyTrademark, #PharmaTrademarkDispute, #DrReddys, #TradeMarkRectification, #Section35TradeMarksAct, #IPLitigation, #JusticeCHariShankar, #JusticeOmPrakashShukla, #IPUpdate, #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, #IPAdjutor
===
Introduction
In a significant ruling on trademark rights involving common surnames in the pharmaceutical sector, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has clarified the scope of protection available to a trading style that has acquired distinctiveness and secondary meaning through long and continuous use. The judgment balances the rights of prior users with the limitations on adopting surnames in a manner that may cause confusion in the market, particularly in the sensitive field of medicines.
Factual and Procedural Background
Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. (DRL), a well-known pharmaceutical company founded in 1984 by Dr. K. Anji Reddy, has been using the trading style “Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories” for decades. Reddy Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (RPL), incorporated in 1996 with a Managing Director bearing the surname Reddy, initially acted as a supplier and later as a del credere agent for DRL’s products. From around 2003, RPL began marketing finished pharmaceutical formulations using “REDDY” prominently as part of its corporate name and house mark.
DRL filed a suit (CS(OS) 2194/2003) seeking permanent injunction for passing off and related reliefs, claiming that RPL’s use of “REDDY” was likely to cause confusion and amounted to passing off. Parallelly, DRL initiated rectification proceedings before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) seeking removal of RPL’s “REDDY” trademark registration. The learned Single Judge, by judgment dated 13 September 2013, decreed the suit substantially in favour of DRL, granting a permanent injunction against RPL’s use of “REDDY” for pharmaceutical products and directing rendition of accounts. The IPAB also ordered rectification by removing RPL’s registration.
RPL challenged the Single Judge’s decree in RFA(OS) 138/2013 and the IPAB order in W.P.(C) 654/2014. Both matters were heard together.
Dispute
The central dispute was whether DRL could claim exclusive rights over the expression “REDDY” in the pharmaceutical trade through prior use and acquired distinctiveness, or whether RPL could legitimately use it as part of its corporate name derived from its Managing Director’s surname. Key issues included likelihood of confusion, bona fide adoption, passing off, acquiescence, and validity of RPL’s trademark registration.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
The Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, with Justice Om Prakash Shukla authoring the judgment delivered on 18 May 2026, undertook a detailed examination of the pleadings, evidence, and legal principles. The Court noted that DRL had been using “Dr. Reddy’s” since 1984 and had built substantial goodwill. It held that the word “REDDY” had become the dominant and essential feature of DRL’s trading style and had acquired secondary meaning exclusively associated with DRL’s products.
The Bench rejected RPL’s defence of bona fide adoption of a common surname, observing that while surnames can be used, such use becomes objectionable when it is likely to cause confusion in the market, especially in pharmaceuticals where public interest demands higher scrutiny (referring to principles from Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73). The Court found evidence of mala fide intent, including RPL’s use of DRL’s address (Ameerpet, Hyderabad) on packaging and its prior relationship as DRL’s agent.
On acquiescence and delay, the Bench held that no real conflict existed while RPL was only supplying bulk drugs. The dispute arose when RPL entered formulations business in 2003, and DRL acted promptly. Thus, the defence of laches was not available. The Court affirmed that prior adoption and use confer superior common law rights over subsequent registration.
The Bench upheld the Single Judge’s findings on passing off and sustained the injunction. It also upheld the IPAB’s rectification order removing RPL’s “REDDY” registration, as the registration was obtained without sufficient cause and remained wrongly on the register.
Final Decision of the Court
On 18 May 2026, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal (RFA(OS) 138/2013) and the writ petition (W.P.(C) 654/2014), substantially upholding the learned Single Judge’s decree and the IPAB’s rectification order. The permanent injunction against RPL using “REDDY” in relation to pharmaceutical products was affirmed.
Point of Law Settled in the Case
The judgment settles that in the pharmaceutical sector, a trading style or mark containing a common surname can acquire distinctiveness and secondary meaning through long, continuous and extensive use, conferring superior common law rights that prevail over subsequent registration by another party. It reiterates that bona fide use of a personal name is not an absolute defence if the adoption creates likelihood of confusion or exploits another’s goodwill. Priority of adoption and use takes precedence, and actions for passing off can succeed even without registration where secondary meaning is established.
Case Detail Title: Reddy Pharmaceuticals vs Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. & Anr. Date of Order: 18 May 2026 Case Number: RFA(OS) 138/2013 & W.P.(C) 654/2014 Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:4402-DB Name of Court: High Court of Delhi Name of Hon'ble Judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla
Disclaimer: 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
Suitable SEO Titles for Legal Journal: Delhi High Court Upholds Dr Reddy’s Rights Over REDDY Mark in Passing Off Dispute, Reddy Pharmaceuticals vs Dr Reddy’s Laboratories Division Bench Judgment on Surname Trademark, Justice Om Prakash Shukla Ruling on Secondary Meaning in Pharma Trademarks, Delhi High Court Affirms Injunction and Rectification in REDDY Trademark Battle
SEO Tags: Delhi High Court, Trademark Passing Off, Pharma Trademark Dispute, Secondary Meaning, Reddy Mark, Surname Trademark, Intellectual Property, Injunction in Trademark, Trade Marks Act, IPAB Rectification
AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor
Headnote: Delhi High Court Division Bench dismisses appeal by Reddy Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and upholds decree in favour of Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, holding that “REDDY” acquired distinctiveness and secondary meaning through DRL’s prior continuous use. RPL’s adoption held likely to cause confusion and passing off; permanent injunction and rectification of register sustained.
====
No comments:
Post a Comment