### Introduction
Decided by the High Court of Delhi, this judgment delves into the intricacies of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, emphasizing that mere incorporation or incidental mention of a name does not equate to trademark use unless it serves as a source identifier for goods or services. The dispute arose from overlapping corporate names beginning with "REXCIN" and "REKIN," but extended to allegations of trademark infringement and passing off for pharmaceutical products. The court's analysis underscores the importance of evidentiary proof in establishing actual commercial use, rejecting vague claims of similarity without demonstrable confusion or overlap in trade channels. This decision reinforces the principle that trademark rights are grounded in bona fide adoption and continuous use, not merely in registration or nominal presence, and serves as a cautionary tale for entities relying on trade names without active trademark deployment in the marketplace.
### Factual Background
Rexcin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., incorporated in 2003, claimed to have coined and used the mark "REXCIN" since December 16, 2003, primarily as its trading style and house mark in the pharmaceutical sector. It asserted extensive use across India, displayed on product packaging, with significant promotional expenditure leading to substantial goodwill among the trade, medical professionals, and consumers. Rexcin's sales figures for the financial year 2021-2022 were reported at Rs. 830.09 lakhs, purportedly demonstrating sustained commercial activity. To protect its rights, Rexcin filed trademark applications in 2022 for "REXCIN" in Classes 16, 44, and 45, all claiming user since 2003, which were registered in December 2022. Applications in Class 5 (for pharmaceuticals) and Class 35 (for trading services) were also filed in April 2022, with the latter accepted and advertised, while the Class 5 application faced objections from the registry citing third-party marks. Notably, Rexcin admitted it was not using "REXCIN" as a product mark but as part of its corporate identity, functioning as a white-label manufacturer supplying gels and creams to major companies like Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and previously Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., where products were sold under distinct third-party trademarks such as Gentalene Plus, Silverex Ionic, and Moisturex. Evidence like invoices from 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2022 showed sales to these entities, but "REXCIN" appeared only inconspicuously as the marketer or licensor, not as a source identifier for the goods themselves. On the other side, Rekin Pharma Pvt. Ltd., incorporated on March 6, 2017, positioned itself as a new-age pharmaceutical company offering affordable medicines across gynaecology, dermatology, cardiology, and general medicine. It launched over 60 products in 2017 under the "REKIN" brand with formatives like REKIN-SP, REKIN-NP, REKIN-CT, and REKIN-P, all Schedule H drugs sold directly to end consumers through B2C channels. Rekin claimed bona fide adoption of "REKIN" as a coined word, with extensive online presence via its website www.rekinpharma.in, social media, and third-party platforms, generating visibility and revenue. It secured registration for the device mark "REKIN PHARMA PVT. LTD." in Class 35 on February 23, 2021 (user claimed since January 1, 2017), and for the word mark "REKIN-SP" in Class 5 on September 1, 2020 (applied on May 4, 2017, on a proposed-to-be-used basis). Rexcin learned of Rekin's existence in May 2022 upon advertisement of the Class 35 mark, opposed it, leading to suspension, and filed the rectification petition against "REKIN-SP," alleging deceptive similarity by replacing "XC" with "K" and adding the generic "SP," claiming violations under various sections of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, including fraud, lack of distinctiveness, confusion, unfair advantage, passing off, and bad faith. Rekin countered that its marks were distinctive, there was no overlap in goods or consumers, no evidence of confusion despite six years of coexistence, and Rexcin had no Class 5 registration or actual trademark use, operating only in B2B as a supplier without consumer-facing products under "REXCIN." The parties' products, when inspected, confirmed Rekin's prominent use of "REKIN" formatives as trademarks, while Rexcin's appeared only as trade names on third-party branded items.
### Procedural Background
The dispute commenced with Rexcin filing CS(COMM) 142/2023 in March 2023, seeking permanent injunction against Rekin for trademark infringement, passing off, and related reliefs concerning the marks "REXCIN" and "REKIN," along with I.A. 4878/2023 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for interim restraint. Concurrently, Rexcin filed the rectification petition C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 111/2023 under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, challenging Rekin's "REKIN-SP" registration (No. 3541661) on grounds of absolute and relative prohibitions, including lack of distinctiveness, deceptive similarity, confusion, unfair advantage, passing off, bad faith, and arbitrary grant. The petition was listed before the court on March 14, 2023, with notice issued to Rekin on September 20, 2023. On March 4, 2024, a coordinate bench queried both parties on settling by restricting "REKIN" to corporate name use only, suggesting mediation if amenable, and listed for May 13, 2024. No settlement occurred, and the matters were argued together, with the court deciding to first resolve the rectification petition on rights in the marks before addressing the interim application. Rekin filed its reply, contending bona fide prior adoption, distinct spheres (B2C vs. B2B), no confusion evidence, and Rexcin's lack of Class 5 use or registration. Rexcin's rejoinder emphasized its tradename goodwill and deceptive similarity. The court heard arguments, perused records including invoices, Chartered Accountant certificates (deemed incomplete), and physical product samples. Reserved on September 24, 2025, the judgment was pronounced on January 27, 2026, dismissing the rectification petition and interim application, with the suit listed for directions on February 6, 2026.
### Reasoning and Decision of Court
The court's reasoning commenced with a detailed analysis of the factual matrix, noting Rexcin's 2022 registrations in Classes 16, 44, and 45, pending applications in Classes 5 and 35, and Rekin's prior 2017 application and 2020 registration for "REKIN-SP" in Class 5. It observed that on May 4, 2017, when Rekin applied for "REKIN-SP," Rexcin had no registrations or applications, making "REKIN-SP" the earlier mark under Section 11. Examining Rexcin's evidence, the court found sample invoices from 2004-2022 reflected only B2B sales of gels and creams to single entities like Sun Pharma, with "REXCIN" appearing as trade name, not trademark, and products sold under distinct third-party marks. The Chartered Accountant certificate was incomplete without product annexures, failing to prove trademark use. Product inspections confirmed "REXCIN" was inconspicuous, used as marketer/licensor, not source identifier, under Section 29(6). Rejecting Rexcin's reliance on Section 29(5), the court clarified it addresses defendant's tradename infringement, not plaintiff's use equivalence. Distinguishing cited precedents like Radheshyam Tourism and Laxmikant V. Patel, it emphasized Rexcin's lack of commercial nexus or consumer-facing use, unlike those cases. For Rekin, the court affirmed bona fide 2017 adoption, prominent trademark use on B2C pharmaceuticals, and no overlap with Rexcin's B2B sphere. Absent deceptive similarity, confusion evidence despite coexistence, or goodwill in "REXCIN" (no ads, promotions shown), statutory objections under Sections 9(1)(a), 9(2)(a), 11(1), 11(2), 11(3)(a), 11(10), and 18(4) were rejected: "REKIN-SP" was distinctive, no prior Rexcin mark, no passing off (lacking misrepresentation/damage), no bad faith, and grant not arbitrary. The rectification petition was dismissed for lacking merit. Extending this to the suit's interim application, the court denied injunction, as Rexcin failed prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm, with Rekin as prior adopter. Reliance on Stiefel Laboratories was misplaced absent competing trademarks. Pending applications disposed, suit listed for directions.
### Point of Law Settled in the Case
This judgment settles that incidental or inconspicuous use of a corporate or trade name on product packaging, such as "manufactured for" or "under trademark usership," does not constitute "use as a trademark" under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, particularly Sections 29(5) and 29(6), unless it functions as a source identifier recognizable by consumers in the course of trade. It clarifies that for rectification under Section 57 or infringement claims, the petitioner/plaintiff must demonstrate actual commercial trademark use with evidence of consumer-facing sales, promotions, and goodwill, not mere nominal presence or B2B transactions under third-party marks. The decision emphasizes that prior adoption and registration in the relevant class (e.g., Class 5 for pharmaceuticals) prevail over later claims, absent proof of deceptive similarity, confusion, or passing off, even if names appear phonetically similar. It distinguishes trade names from trademarks, holding Section 29(5) inapplicable to equate plaintiff's tradename use with trademark rights, and rejects passing off without misrepresentation or damage, reinforcing evidentiary thresholds in pharmaceutical disputes where distinct trade channels (B2B vs. B2C) negate likelihood of confusion.
**Case Detail**
Title: Rexcin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. Rekin Pharma Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Date of Order: 27th January, 2026
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 111/2023 & CS(COMM) 142/2023
Neutral Citation: Not provided in the judgment
Name of court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
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
**Suggested Titles:**
1. "Trade Name vs. Trademark: Delhi High Court Dismisses Rectification in Rexcin v. Rekin Pharma Dispute"
2. "No Trademark Use, No Injunction: Analyzing the Rexcin Pharmaceuticals v. Rekin Pharma Judgment"
3. "Bona Fide Adoption Prevails: Key Insights from Delhi HC's Ruling on Pharmaceutical Marks"
4. "Deceptive Similarity in Pharma: Why Rexcin's Claim Failed Against Rekin's Prior Mark"
5. "Evidentiary Gaps in IP Claims: Lessons from the Rexcin-Rekin Trademark Battle"
**Suitable Tags:**
Trademark Infringement, Passing Off, Trade Marks Act 1999, Pharmaceutical Trademarks, Deceptive Similarity, Rectification Petition, Prior Adoption, Goodwill and Reputation, Delhi High Court, Trade Name vs Trademark, B2B vs B2C Trade Channels, Section 57 Rectification, Interim Injunction Denial, Bona Fide User, Consumer Confusion
**Headnote of Article**
Delhi High Court dismisses rectification petition and interim injunction in trademark dispute between Rexcin Pharmaceuticals and Rekin Pharma, holding that incidental use of trade name does not constitute trademark use; prior bona fide adoption by Rekin in Class 5 prevails absent evidence of confusion, goodwill, or competing marks; clarifies Sections 9, 11, 18, 29 inapplicable without actual source-identifying use.
=====
**Very Brief and Compact Summary**
Rexcin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., incorporated in 2003, claimed prior adoption and use of “REXCIN” since December 2003 as its house/trade name in pharmaceutical manufacturing, mainly as a white-label supplier (B2B) to companies like Sun Pharma, with products sold under third-party trademarks and “REXCIN” appearing only inconspicuously as marketer/licensor; it held registrations in Classes 16, 44 & 45 (obtained 2022) and pending applications in Classes 5 & 35, but admitted no direct use of “REXCIN” on its own products for sale to end consumers. Rekin Pharma Pvt. Ltd., incorporated in 2017, adopted “REKIN” as its coined house mark and launched B2C pharmaceutical products under “REKIN” formatives including “REKIN-SP” (registered in Class 5 on 01.09.2020, applied 04.05.2017 on proposed-to-be-used basis). Rexcin filed rectification petition C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 111/2023 seeking cancellation of “REKIN-SP” on grounds of deceptive similarity, prior goodwill, confusion, passing off, bad faith, and violation of various Sections of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and simultaneously filed suit CS(COMM) 142/2023 seeking injunction against Rekin for infringement and passing off. The Court first decided the rectification petition, finding that Rexcin failed to prove actual trademark use of “REXCIN” (mere trade name mention on third-party branded products insufficient under Sections 29(5) & 29(6)), no evidence of consumer-facing sales, promotions, goodwill or actual confusion despite six years coexistence, no overlap in trade channels (B2B vs B2C), and Rekin as bona fide prior adopter in Class 5. All statutory objections under Sections 9, 11, 18 were rejected; rectification petition dismissed for lack of merit. Consequently, interim injunction in the suit was also declined as Rexcin failed to establish prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.
**Crisp Bullet Points of Law Settled**
- Incidental/inconspicuous mention of a corporate/trade name on product packaging (e.g., as “manufactured for” or “under trademark usership”) does not constitute “use as a trademark” or source-identifying use under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, particularly Sections 29(5) & 29(6), unless it functions as a badge of origin recognizable by consumers in the course of trade. (Para relevant to analysis of invoices & product inspection)
- For rectification under Section 57 or success in infringement/passing off claims, the petitioner/plaintiff must establish actual commercial trademark use with concrete evidence of consumer-facing sales, promotions, and acquired goodwill, not merely nominal B2B transactions or trade name presence. (Para dealing with evaluation of Rexcin’s evidence & Chartered Accountant certificate)
- Section 29(5) applies only to defendant’s use of its trade name causing infringement; it cannot be invoked to equate plaintiff’s own incidental trade name use with trademark rights or to create prior rights against a later bona fide registrant. (Para distinguishing Section 29(5) applicability)
- In pharmaceutical trademark disputes, distinct trade channels (B2B white-label supply vs. direct B2C sales to end consumers) significantly reduce likelihood of confusion even when house marks appear phonetically similar. (Para on no overlap in goods, services, consumer base)
- Absent proof of misrepresentation, actual damage, or likelihood of passing off, and with peaceful coexistence for years without confusion evidence, registration cannot be cancelled on grounds of Sections 9(1)(a), 9(2)(a), 11(1), 11(2), 11(3), 11(10) or 18(4). Prior bona fide adoption and registration in the relevant class prevail. (Para rejecting all grounds of cancellation)
Case Title: Rexcin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rekin Pharma Pvt. Ltd.
**Order Date:** 27th January, 2026
**Case Number:** C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 111/2023 & CS(COMM) 142/2023
**Neutral Citation:** 2026:DHC:1643 (as appearing in uploaded document header)
**Name of Court:** High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
**Name of Judge:** Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
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
=====
