In this commercial IP suit, IPCA Laboratories Limited (Plaintiff) sued Anrose Pharma (Defendant) for infringement of its registered trademark ZERODOL (used since 2003 for pain-relief pharmaceutical preparations) and for passing off by the Defendant’s adoption of the virtually identical mark ZEROVOL-P for similar medicinal products. The suit remained undefended after due service; the Defendant never appeared nor filed any written statement. The Bombay High Court, after considering uncontroverted evidence of the Plaintiff’s long prior use, substantial goodwill, sales, and registration, held that the marks are deceptively similar both visually and phonetically, especially in the pharmaceutical field where a stricter test of confusion applies, and that the Defendant’s adoption was dishonest and in bad faith. The Court decreed the suit granting permanent injunction against infringement and passing off, directed delivery-up and destruction of infringing material, but declined damages for want of proof of actual loss; instead, it awarded costs of ₹15,00,000/- (with 8% interest if not paid within 8 weeks) in view of the Defendant’s contumacious conduct and the public health implications involved.
Crisp points of law settled in the case
Phonetic and visual near-identity between ZERODOL and ZEROVOL-P, particularly in pharmaceutical products, creates high likelihood of confusion and deception warranting injunction (Paras 9–11, 15(D)–(F))
In medicinal preparations, the test of deceptive similarity is stricter because of inevitable risk to public health and interest (Paras 9, 13, 15(F))
Marks are to be compared as a whole; overall similarity (phonetic + structural + idea) is decisive rather than microscopic differences, and test is from the viewpoint of average consumer with imperfect recollection (reliance on catena of Supreme Court and Bombay High Court judgments – Paras 10–11)
Dishonest/bad faith adoption + non-appearance/non-defence of suit is a relevant factor for grant of exemplary costs under Section 35 CPC as amended by Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (Paras 12–13, 15(I))
In absence of proof of actual loss/damage, claim for damages/punitive damages can be declined, but substantial costs can still be awarded considering conduct and nature of goods (Paras 15(H)–(I))
Case Details
Case Title : IPCA Laboratories Limited Vs Anrose Pharma
Order Date : 5th January 2026
Case Number : Commercial IP Suit No. 77 of 2013
Neutral Citation : 2026:BHC-AS:XXXXX (exact neutral citation to be assigned)
Court : High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction – Commercial Division)
Judge : Arif S. Doctor, J.
[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]
