In this interim application in a commercial IP suit filed by Laboratoires Griffon Private Limited & Anr against Rajiv Mukul & Ors, the plaintiffs, registered proprietors of GLIMET and GLIMET DS trademarks for anti-diabetic pharmaceuticals, sought injunction alleging defendants breached a 2021 court undertaking to cease using similar mark GLYNET by continuing its use and adopting deceptively similar GLYZET. In the prior 2021 suit, disposed via consent order, defendants agreed to stop GLYNET, withdraw registrations, and dispose stock. Plaintiffs presented evidence of post-2021 manufacture/sale under GLYNET and GLYZET on defendants' website. Defendants denied infringement, claimed no post-2021 GLYNET use, justified GLYZET as derived from Glimepiride (GLY) and company name (ZET), and argued no similarity or confusion risk. The court reasoned that defendants' GLYZET adoption was dishonest, inconsistent with own explanation, and calculated to circumvent prior order; marks GLIMET and GLYZET were deceptively similar structurally (six letters, GL_ ET), visually, phonetically (GLI/GLY), warranting stricter pharma test due to public health risks and potential confusion/deception; defendants perjured via false affidavits denying continued use, as evidence showed breach; lacked clean hands by violating undertakings and making false statements; superficial "read as GLYZET" endorsement was subterfuge; balance of convenience favored plaintiffs to prevent irreparable harm. Court granted interim injunction restraining use of GLYNET/GLYZET or similars, initiated perjury proceedings against defendants 1,2,4, imposed Rs 50 lakh costs payable within 12 weeks with 12% interest if delayed, and stayed order for 4 weeks.
- A party breaching solemn undertakings to the court and making false statements on oath lacks clean hands and is disentitled to any equitable consideration or relief, as such conduct sullies the process of law. (Para H)
- In cases involving medicinal/pharmaceutical trademarks, a stricter test for deceptive similarity applies due to overriding public health considerations; even a reasonable possibility of confusion or deception is sufficient for injunctive relief, irrespective of packaging differences or prescription sales. (Para F, citing Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Shalina Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Tri-Beeca Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.)
- Trademarks must be compared as a whole from the standpoint of an average consumer with imperfect recollection, considering overall structural, visual, and phonetic similarity rather than microscopic side-by-side dissection. (Para D, citing Pidilite Industries Ltd. v. Raghunath Chemicals, Faber-Castell Aktiengesellschaft v. Pikturen Trading Agencies)
- Superficial or cosmetic alterations to an infringing mark, such as endorsements like "read as", do not obviate liability and would encourage repeated litigation, amounting to a premium on dishonesty. (Para J)
- In commercial suits under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, costs must ordinarily follow the event with due regard to parties' conduct; unscrupulous litigants polluting justice through falsehoods warrant exemplary costs. (Para K, citing Section 35 CPC as amended, Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India)
- Breach of court undertakings and false evidence on oath constitutes an offence under Section 227 BNS, empowering the court to take cognizance and initiate proceedings under Sections 215 and 379 BNSS. (Para I)
**Case Details**
Case Title: Laboratoires Griffon Vs. Rajiv Mukul
Order Date: 13th January, 2026
Case Number: Interim Application No. 3540 of 2022 in Comm IP Suit No. 213 of 2022
Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC:1038
Name of Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Name of Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arif S. Doctor
[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]
