Alkem Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Numen Pharma Private Limited
Date of Judgment: 08 June 2026 | Case No.: Interim Application No. 1606 of 2026 in Commercial IP Suit No. 679 of 2025 | Neutral Citation: Not Available | Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Commercial Division | Judge: Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh
The Court considered a dispute concerning trademark infringement and passing off in relation to pharmaceutical products marketed under the marks “ALCIPRO” and “ACIPROX”. The case arose from allegations that the defendant had adopted the mark “ACIPROX”, which the plaintiff contended was deceptively similar to its long-standing registered trademark “ALCIPRO”.
The principal question before the Court was whether the defendant’s mark “ACIPROX” was phonetically similar to the plaintiff’s registered mark “ALCIPRO” so as to give rise to a likelihood of confusion, particularly in the case of medicinal preparations.
After examining the material on record and the submissions of the parties, Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh observed that the rival marks must be compared as a whole and not dissected syllable by syllable. The Court found that “ALCIPRO” and “ACIPROX” were phonetically similar and that even a bare possibility of confusion in relation to medicinal products must be prevented. The Court held that a registered proprietor is entitled to restrain the use of an identical or deceptively similar mark, emphasizing that differences in packaging, colour schemes, or the fact that the products are Schedule ‘H’ drugs do not eliminate the likelihood of confusion.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the interim application and granted an injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling, marketing, or otherwise using the mark “ACIPROX” or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered trademark “ALCIPRO” pending disposal of the suit.
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice, as it is based on limited information and is intended solely for general informational purposes.
===
Below is a publication-ready analytical article based on the judgment in Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v. Numen Pharma Private Limited.
Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v. Numen Pharma Private Limited: Bombay High Court Protects Pharmaceutical Trademark “ALCIPRO” Against Use of “ACIPROX”
Introduction
Trademark disputes involving medicinal products are treated with exceptional seriousness because even a minor possibility of confusion between two pharmaceutical products can have grave consequences for public health. The Bombay High Court's decision in Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v. Numen Pharma Private Limited reiterates the settled principle that in the case of medicines, courts apply a stricter standard and seek to eliminate even the possibility of confusion.
The dispute involved the registered trademark "ALCIPRO", used by Alkem Laboratories for several decades, and the mark "ACIPROX" adopted by a comparatively recent entrant in the pharmaceutical market. The case raised important questions concerning phonetic similarity, the anti-dissection rule, the effect of International Non-Proprietary Names (INN), common-to-trade arguments, and the degree of protection available to medicinal trademarks.
The judgment is of considerable importance to pharmaceutical companies, trademark owners, medical practitioners, and intellectual property lawyers, as it reinforces the principle that public safety outweighs commercial convenience when deceptively similar medicinal marks are involved.
Factual and Procedural Background
Alkem Laboratories Ltd., a well-known pharmaceutical company, adopted the trademark "ALCIPRO" in 1990 and obtained registration in Class 5 on 4 April 1990. Subsequently, on 28 September 1998, it secured registration for the variant mark "ALCIPRO-TN". The products bearing the "ALCIPRO" mark contain Ciprofloxacin and are used for the treatment of bacterial infections, urinary tract infections, throat infections, skin infections and respiratory infections.
Over the years, Alkem introduced several variants of the "ALCIPRO" range and established extensive goodwill and reputation in the market. The plaintiff produced evidence of sales and promotional activities and demonstrated long and continuous use of the mark.
In December 2023, Alkem came across an application advertised in the Trade Marks Journal for registration of the mark "ACIPROX", filed by Numen Pharma Private Limited on 16 January 2023 on a proposed-to-be-used basis. Alkem filed an opposition to the application. In response, the defendant claimed use of the impugned mark since 2023.
Alkem instituted Commercial IP Suit No. 679 of 2025 before the Commercial Division of the Bombay High Court seeking reliefs for trademark infringement and passing off. On 8 October 2025, the Court granted ad-interim protection in favour of Alkem.
Numen Pharma filed an affidavit in reply dated 22 November 2025 and an additional affidavit dated 19 March 2026 opposing the interim application. After hearing the parties, the Court reserved the matter on 24 April 2026 and pronounced its order on 8 June 2026.
Dispute Before the Court
The principal question before the Court was whether the mark "ACIPROX" used by the defendant was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark "ALCIPRO" and whether such use amounted to infringement and passing off.
Alkem contended that "ALCIPRO" was an invented and distinctive mark which had acquired substantial reputation since 1990. It argued that the defendant's mark differed merely by deletion of the letter "L" and addition of the letter "X", creating a high likelihood of confusion. Since the products involved medicinal preparations with different compositions and therapeutic uses, even a slight possibility of confusion could produce dangerous consequences.
Numen Pharma argued that the expression "CIPRO" was descriptive and derived from the molecule Ciprofloxacin, which forms part of the International Non-Proprietary Name system. According to the defendant, the plaintiff could not claim monopoly over such a generic component. It further contended that the rival marks were visually and phonetically distinct, the packaging and trade dress were different, and the medicines were Schedule H drugs sold only on prescription, thereby eliminating the possibility of confusion.
The defendant also relied upon the existence of numerous trademarks containing the expression "CIPRO" and asserted that the impugned mark had been honestly adopted after conducting a search of the trademark registry.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Court
The Court observed that the plaintiff's product and the defendant's product contained entirely different active ingredients and were intended for treatment of different ailments. Consequently, substitution of one medicine for the other could have hazardous consequences.
The Court emphasized that in cases involving medicinal products, even the slightest possibility of confusion must be prevented. It noted that the dispute was essentially between "ALCIPRO" and "ACIPROX", where the defendant had merely omitted the letter "L" and added the letter "X". The Court rejected the defendant's attempt to compare the marks syllable by syllable and reaffirmed the anti-dissection rule, according to which marks must be considered as a whole.
The Court relied heavily upon the Division Bench decision in Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Meghmani Lifesciences Ltd. & Anr., Comm. Appeal (L) No.42382 of 2025, where the rival marks "RACIRAFT" and "ESIRAFT" were examined. The Division Bench had held that dissecting marks into individual syllables was impermissible and that phonetic similarity should be assessed by considering the marks in their entirety.
Applying this principle, the Court held that "ALCIPRO" and "ACIPROX" were phonetically similar. It observed that hurried pronunciation or mispronunciation could easily create confusion and that the terminal letter "X" was insufficient to distinguish the marks.
The Court reiterated that the possibility of confusion assumes greater significance in a multilingual country like India, where varying levels of literacy and pronunciation exist.
The Court relied extensively upon the landmark decision of the Supreme Court in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73, which laid down that even prescription drugs are susceptible to confusion and that a higher standard of care is required for medicinal products. The Supreme Court had emphasized that doctors and pharmacists are not immune from mistakes and that linguistic diversity and varying standards of healthcare infrastructure necessitate strict measures against deceptively similar medicinal marks.
Reference was also made to Milmet Oftho Industries v. Allergan Inc., (2004) 12 SCC 624, where the Supreme Court stressed that confusion involving medicinal products demands exacting judicial scrutiny because the consequences may be far more serious than those involving ordinary consumer goods.
The Court rejected the defendant's argument that the medicines were Schedule H drugs and therefore confusion was unlikely. It held that prescriptions are often handwritten or communicated orally and mistakes are possible even among professionals.
On the issue of International Non-Proprietary Names, the Court held that the plaintiff was not seeking monopoly over "Ciprofloxacin" itself. The exclusivity claimed was in the distinctive combination embodied in the mark "ALCIPRO". The plaintiff's registration dated back to 1990 under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, whereas the notification concerning INNs under Section 13 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 came much later. Therefore, Section 13 did not invalidate or diminish the plaintiff's rights.
The Court also referred to Lupin Ltd. v. Eris Lifesciences (P) Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 6807, observing that the defendant had not challenged the validity of the plaintiff's registration within the narrow window recognised in that decision. Under Section 31 of the Trade Marks Act, registration constitutes prima facie evidence of validity.
The defendant's reliance upon the existence of numerous marks containing "CIPRO" was rejected. The Court observed that mere entries on the register are insufficient to establish that a mark has become common to the trade. It relied on Jagdish Gopal Kamath v. Lime & Chilli Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 531, where it had been held that extensive and widespread use must be demonstrated before a mark can be treated as common to the trade.
With respect to passing off, the Court examined Section 27(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and relied upon Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah, (2002) 3 SCC 65, where the Supreme Court held that likelihood of damage is sufficient and proof of actual fraud or actual damage is unnecessary.
The Court also relied upon Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Siffynet Solutions (P) Ltd., (2004) 6 SCC 145, which explained that misrepresentation in passing off does not require proof of mala fide intention.
The Court distinguished the authorities cited by the defendant. It held that Sun Pharmaceutical Laboratories Ltd. v. Hetero Healthcare Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2580, involved marks derived from the same generic drug and therefore turned on entirely different facts. Similarly, Aristo Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. v. Healing Pharma India Pvt. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4693, concerned an undisguised clipped version of a generic term without any distinctive addition. The Court found those decisions inapplicable.
The Supreme Court's decision in F. Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. Ltd. v. Geoffrey Manners & Co. Pvt. Ltd., (1969) 2 SCC 716, was also distinguished on facts, although the principle that marks must be compared as a whole was accepted.
After examining the evidence, the Court concluded that the plaintiff had established goodwill and reputation built over decades and that the defendant, being incorporated only in 2023, was a late entrant. The balance of convenience clearly favoured the plaintiff.
Final Decision of the Court
The Bombay High Court held that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off.
The Court found that "ACIPROX" was deceptively similar to "ALCIPRO" and that continued use of the impugned mark was likely to create confusion with potentially serious consequences because the medicines treated different ailments.
Accordingly, the interim application was allowed and the earlier ad-interim protection was confirmed. The defendant, along with its directors, employees, distributors, agents and all persons acting on its behalf, was restrained from manufacturing, selling, advertising, marketing or otherwise using the mark "ACIPROX" or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to "ALCIPRO" pending disposal of the suit. The Court also granted relief in respect of passing off.
Point of Law Settled
The judgment reaffirms that in pharmaceutical trademark disputes, the test is not actual confusion but the possibility of confusion. Courts are required to apply a stricter standard because mistakes in dispensing medicines may endanger public health.
The decision reiterates the anti-dissection rule and confirms that rival marks must be compared as a whole rather than syllable by syllable. It further clarifies that differences in packaging, colour schemes, house marks or the fact that medicines are prescription drugs do not eliminate the likelihood of confusion.
The judgment also emphasizes that mere existence of similar marks on the register does not establish that a mark is common to the trade unless extensive and widespread use is proved. It additionally reinforces the evidentiary value of registration under Section 31 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and underscores that goodwill acquired through long-standing use will receive strong judicial protection against late entrants.
Case Details:
Title of the Case: Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v. Numen Pharma Private Limited
Date of Judgment/Order: 8 June 2026
Case Number: Interim Application No. 1606 of 2026 in Commercial IP Suit No. 679 of 2025
Neutral Citation: 2026 SCC OnLine Bom (Neutral Citation not available in the judgment supplied)
Name of Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, Commercial Division
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh
Written By:
Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Disclaimer: Images used herein do not reflect actual images used in Judgement and that the same are for illustrative purpose only. Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Suggested SEO Titles:
Bombay High Court Grants Injunction Against ACIPROX in Pharmaceutical Trademark Dispute
Alkem Laboratories v. Numen Pharma: Protection of Medicinal Trademark ALCIPRO Explained
Bombay High Court Reiterates Strict Standard for Similar Pharmaceutical Trademarks
ALCIPRO vs ACIPROX: Key Takeaways from Bombay High Court's Trademark Judgment
Pharmaceutical Trademark Infringement and Passing Off: Analysis of Alkem Laboratories Case
Can Prescription Drugs Cause Trademark Confusion? Bombay High Court Answers
Anti-Dissection Rule Applied in ALCIPRO vs ACIPROX Trademark Dispute
Section 13 of Trade Marks Act and INN Defence Explained Through Alkem v. Numen Pharma
Similar Sounding Drug Names and Public Safety: Bombay High Court Judgment Analysis
Medicinal Trademark Protection in India: Lessons from Alkem Laboratories v. Numen Pharma
Phonetic Similarity in Pharmaceutical Marks: Bombay High Court's Latest Ruling
Passing Off and Trademark Infringement in Medicines: ALCIPRO Judgment Explained
Suggested SEO Tags:
Alkem Laboratories, Numen Pharma, ALCIPRO trademark, ACIPROX trademark, pharmaceutical trademark dispute, Bombay High Court, medicinal trademark infringement, passing off action, phonetic similarity, anti dissection rule, Cadila Health Care case, Milmet Oftho Industries, Section 13 Trade Marks Act, Section 27 Trade Marks Act, Section 31 Trade Marks Act, Schedule H drugs, trademark injunction, deceptively similar marks, pharmaceutical branding, trademark law India, intellectual property litigation, drug name confusion, medicinal products trademark, goodwill and reputation, common to trade defence, trademark registration, pharmaceutical IP law, Bombay High Court judgment, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor
Headnote of the Judgment:
Alkem Laboratories Ltd., proprietor of the registered trademark "ALCIPRO" since 1990 for pharmaceutical products containing Ciprofloxacin, instituted a suit for infringement and passing off against Numen Pharma Private Limited, which adopted the mark "ACIPROX" in 2023. The defendant contended that "CIPRO" was generic, that the marks were dissimilar, and that the medicines were Schedule H drugs sold only on prescription. The Bombay High Court held that medicinal products require a stricter standard of scrutiny and that even the possibility of confusion must be avoided. Applying the anti-dissection rule and relying upon Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73, and Milmet Oftho Industries v. Allergan Inc., (2004) 12 SCC 624, the Court found "ACIPROX" phonetically similar to "ALCIPRO". It rejected the defendant's reliance on differences in packaging, house marks and prescription-based sale. Holding that the plaintiff had established goodwill and a strong prima facie case of infringement and passing off, the Court granted an interim injunction restraining use of the mark "ACIPROX" and any deceptively similar mark pending disposal of the suit.
====
