Case Title: GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs. Chembott Chemicals and Pharmaceutical Private Limited and Anr. Order Date: 29.08.2025 Case Number: CS(COMM) 916/2025 & I.As. 21291-95/2025 Name of Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Name of Hon'ble Judge: Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Summary of the Case
Facts
GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited (the plaintiff), a major player in the global healthcare industry and part of the GSK group, has been using and owning the registered trademark 'COBADEX' since 1958 (Registration No. 185987 in Class 5). This mark is used for multivitamin and mineral deficiency medicines, including tablets, capsules, and previously syrups. The plaintiff started using it in India in 1974 and has built strong goodwill through continuous sales and heavy marketing investments. Its products, like COBADEX CZS (containing ingredients such as Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Nicotinamide, Cyanocobalamin, Folic Acid, Chromium, Zinc, and Selenium), target vitamin and mineral deficiencies in adults. The company has grown its sales significantly over the years and operates in the pharmaceutical sector.
The defendants, Chembott Chemicals and Pharmaceutical Private Limited (Defendant No. 1, a company under the Companies Act, 2013) and its director (Defendant No. 2), are also in the pharmaceutical business. In March 2024, the plaintiff learned of Defendant No. 2's trademark application (No. 6252220) for 'COZIDEX' (the impugned mark), covering similar pharmaceutical products, published in the Trade Marks Journal on 26.02.2024. The plaintiff opposed this on 23.04.2024, citing prior rights. Defendant No. 2 filed a counter-statement claiming use of 'COZIDEX' but missed deadlines for evidence, filing a late affidavit on 08.05.2025 with invoices from Defendant No. 1 showing the mark on similar products. Defendant No. 1's GST registration is suspended. The plaintiff sent a cease-and-desist notice on 20.06.2025, but defendants replied on 24.06.2025 denying similarity. The opposition is pending before the Trade Marks Registry. The plaintiff believes defendants are using 'COZIDEX' based on the invoices, though the product is not openly available in the market.
Dispute
The core issue is trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiff claims 'COZIDEX' is deceptively similar to 'COBADEX'—phonetically, visually, conceptually, and structurally—because defendants altered 'BA' to 'ZI' in the mark. This similarity could confuse consumers, especially since both marks are for identical pharmaceutical products treating vitamin and mineral deficiencies. The plaintiff argues the adoption is dishonest and in bad faith, aiming to exploit its reputation, particularly as the plaintiff recently stopped selling syrups under 'COBADEX', leading consumers to mistake 'COZIDEX' for a related product. The suit seeks a permanent injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC to stop infringement, passing off, unfair competition, and related reliefs like accounts. Defendants did not appear despite notice, including via WhatsApp and video link, showing conscious absence.
Decision
The court first handled interlocutory applications (I.As.):
- I.A. 21295/2025 (under Section 151 CPC read with Rule 19(2) and (3) of Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022): Allowed filing of documents (sales figures) in a sealed cover, but required an affidavit summarizing details within one week for court reference.
- I.A. 21294/2025 (under Section 151 CPC): Granted temporary exemption from filing clearer copies of specified documents, subject to filing them within four weeks.
- I.A. 21293/2025 (under Section 12A Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 151 CPC): Exempted the plaintiff from pre-institution mediation, citing urgent interim relief needs and Supreme Court precedent in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi (2024) 5 SCC 15.
- I.A. 21292/2025 (under Order XI Rule 1(4) CPC as amended by Commercial Courts Act, 2015): Permitted filing additional documents within 30 days, strictly per Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
For the main suit (CS(COMM) 916/2025): The plaint was registered. Summons issued to defendants via all modes (including to their Trademark Registry counsel, Mr. Nishant Kumar) on process fee payment. Written statements must be filed within 30 days of summons receipt, with affidavits of admission/denial of plaintiff's documents; failure means they won't be recorded. Plaintiff can file replications within 30 days thereafter, with similar affidavit requirements. Unjustified denials may attract costs. Inspection of documents per Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. Affidavit of service within two weeks. Listed before Joint Registrar for service/pleadings on 08.10.2025, and court on 24.02.2026.
For I.A. 21291/2025 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC): After hearing the plaintiff (defendants absent despite service on 27.08.2025 and notice on 28.08.2025 via WhatsApp/video link), the court found a prima facie case. 'COBADEX' has long continuous use since 1958 for similar medicines. 'COZIDEX' is deceptively similar, likely causing confusion in pharmaceuticals. Citing Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001) 5 SCC 73 (paras 22, 25, 27), the court stressed strict application of deceptive similarity test for drugs to avoid confusion. Balance of convenience favors plaintiff; irreparable harm to plaintiff and public if no injunction, given the sector. Ex parte ad-interim injunction granted until next hearing: Defendants, their directors, officers, employees, agents, dealers, licensees, affiliates, etc., restrained from manufacturing, selling, displaying, advertising, or marketing (online/offline) any products (syrups or others) under 'COZIDEX' or similar marks deceptively akin to 'COBADEX'. Notice issued returnable next date; reply within four weeks, rejoinder four weeks thereafter. Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC compliance within two weeks.
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
