Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited filed a suit for trademark infringement and passing off against Meghmani Lifesciences Limited and its manufacturer alleging that the defendant's mark EsiRaft for an oral suspension treating heartburn and indigestion containing identical active ingredients infringed its registered trademark RACIRAFT adopted in January 2022 with substantial sales turnover. An ex parte ad-interim injunction was granted on 7 April 2025 restraining the defendant, which was challenged by the defendant leading to hearing and arguments on vacation of injunction. The court reasoned that marks must be compared holistically as a whole without dissection, the common suffix RAFT is generic/descriptive denoting raft-like foam from sodium alginate common in such formulations and widely used in pharma trade, prefixes RACI and ESI are visually phonetically structurally distinct creating no likelihood of confusion among average consumers of medicinal preparations who exercise caution, no prima facie case of infringement under Section 29 or passing off established, and balance of convenience against injunction given defendant's ongoing use since July 2024. The interim application was dismissed vacating the ad-interim injunction but extended for one week from order upload to enable plaintiff further steps.
- Trademarks must be compared holistically as a whole without anti-dissection rule applying to isolate elements, focusing on overall visual phonetic structural impression and likelihood of confusion: Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73; Para [relevant to holistic comparison].
- Generic or descriptive suffixes like RAFT common to pharmaceutical trade for raft-forming formulations cannot confer monopoly or exclusivity preventing use by others: Para [relevant to generic nature of RAFT].
- In pharmaceutical cases higher threshold for confusion applies as average consumers exercise greater care caution in purchasing medicinal products reducing likelihood of deception: Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73; Para [relevant to pharma consumer standard].
- No prima facie case of infringement or passing off warranting interim injunction if marks not deceptively similar overall and no misrepresentation or damage shown: Para [relevant to no prima facie case].
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited Vs Meghmani Lifesciences Limited and Another, Order date: 23 December 2025, Case Number: Interim Application (L) No.9484 of 2025 in Commercial IP (L) No.353 of 2025, Neutral Citation: N/A, Name of court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Name of Judge: Sharmila U. Deshmukh.
[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]
