The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited v. Rebanta Healthcare Pvt Ltd and Anr., [CS(COMM) 553/2024, dated July 9, 2024], granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the trademark "REBAHEAL" or any deceptively similar mark, finding prima facie evidence of trademark infringement and passing off.
Facts of the Case:
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited, the plaintiff, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Rebanta Healthcare Pvt Ltd and another, the defendants, for trademark infringement, passing off, unfair trade competition, damages, and other reliefs. The plaintiff claimed to be the registered proprietor of the trademark "REBAHEAL" in Class 5, which it adopted and launched on June 26, 2023, for a product containing Rebamipide used to treat peptic ulcers and mouth ulcers.
The plaintiff asserted that its "REBAHEAL" mark had gained substantial goodwill and reputation since its launch, with sales figures running into several crores of rupees for the financial year 2023-2024. The plaintiff's product was marketed and sold throughout India through a vast chain of distributors and was available at every chemist shop. The plaintiff argued that "REBAHEAL" being a coined word, was inherently distinctive of its products and business.
In the last week of June 2024, the plaintiff discovered that the defendants were manufacturing, marketing, and selling medicinal products under the identical mark "REBAHEAL" for the treatment of pain, regulation of menstruation, and repair of bone fractures. The defendants' product contained a different composition (Cissus Quadrangularis Linn & Moringa Oleifera Extract Tab) than the plaintiff's product. The plaintiff conducted a trademark search and found no pending application or registration for the impugned mark "REBAHEAL" in the name of either defendant.
The plaintiff argued that the defendants' adoption of the identical mark was dishonest and motivated by a desire to usurp the plaintiff's reputation and goodwill. The plaintiff contended that the use of the identical mark for different medical purposes could lead to serious health implications if consumers confused the products. The plaintiff emphasized that on Google search, the only product appearing under the name "REBAHEAL" was that of the plaintiff, further demonstrating its goodwill and reputation.
Issue:
Whether the defendants should be restrained from using the trademark "REBAHEAL" or any deceptively similar mark for their medicinal products?
Held by the Court:
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CS(COMM) 553/2024 held that:
The Court observed that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for the grant of interim relief. It held that the plaintiff was likely to suffer irreparable loss and injury to its goodwill and reputation if relief was not granted. The Court opined that the balance of convenience also lay in favor of the plaintiff, considering the potential harm to public health and the plaintiff's business interests.
The Court noted that the rival marks "REBAHEAL" and "REBAHEAL" were visually and phonetically identical, which would likely cause confusion and deception among the general public, doctors, and chemists. It emphasized that since the rival products were meant for different ailments, there was a risk of serious health implications if the wrong medicine was taken by prospective patients due to confusion. The Court held that this factor was particularly significant in granting the interim injunction.
The Court observed that the class of consumers for both products directly overlapped, and the use of the identical name "REBAHEAL" for different purposes would cause serious injury to public health. It held that the general public would likely believe the defendants' infringing product to be the same as the plaintiff's due to the identical names, which could lead to disastrous consequences given the different compositions and intended uses of the products.
The Court opined that the plaintiff's registration of the "REBAHEAL" trademark, coupled with its prior adoption and extensive use since June 2023, established the plaintiff's exclusive proprietary rights. It held that the defendants' adoption of an identical mark for pharmaceutical products, albeit for different ailments, was prima facie evidence of an intention to ride upon the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff's well-known trademark.
Considering these factors, the Court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants, their directors, affiliates, officers, servants, employees, dealers, agents, representatives, distributors, and all other persons acting on behalf of the defendants from manufacturing, marketing, supplying, selling, offering for sale (including online), advertising, directly or indirectly medicinal, ayurvedic, and pharmaceutical preparations under the impugned trademark "REBAHEAL" or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark "REBAHEAL". The Court directed that notice be issued to the defendants by all permissible modes, with the reply to be filed within four weeks from the date of service, and ordered compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure within 10 days.
Relevant Sections:
Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015
_________________________________________________________
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and NLF Tax and Legal Advisory. The contents of this article are solely for informational purposes and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or a recommendation of the firm. Neither the author nor the firm and its affiliates accept any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing, and we reserve the legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission
Comments