CALPOL a Well-Known Trademark: Delhi HC Bars WALPOL Use, Awards Rs 2 Lakh Damages to GSK

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has declared CALPOL, the widely used medicinal brand owned by GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited, (GSK) as a "well-known trademark" under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, while decreeing a trademark infringement suit against Walter Healthcare Private Limited and another defendant over the use of the allegedly deceptive mark WALPOL.

Delivering the judgment on May 15, 2026, Justice Jyoti Singh held that the mark “CALPOL” had acquired extensive recognition and goodwill in India through long-standing use, extensive promotion, large sales turnover and repeated judicial protection.

The suit was instituted by GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited seeking permanent injunction restraining Walter Healthcare Private Limited and its representatives from manufacturing, marketing, advertising or selling pharmaceutical products under the mark “WALPOL” or any other deceptively similar mark allegedly infringing GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited’s registered trademarks “CALPOL” and “CALPOL FAST”.

GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited also sought declaration of “CALPOL” as a well-known trademark under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited informed the Court that it is part of the global GSK group of companies, headed by GSK plc in the United Kingdom, with roots dating back to 1715 and operations in more than 150 countries. It stated that GSK has developed a strong international presence in pharmaceuticals and vaccines with significant investments in research, manufacturing, promotion and healthcare innovation.

GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited submitted that GSK entered the Indian market through distributors in 1919 and commenced direct trade operations in 1924. It stated that the present company evolved from H.J. Foster & Company Limited and subsequently became GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited.

According to the plaint, GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited adopted and started using the trademark “CALPOL” in 1991 in relation to medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations including tablets, syrups and oral drops. It argued that because of continuous and uninterrupted use over several decades, Indian consumers exclusively associate the “CALPOL” mark with the company.

GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited emphasized that “CALPOL” is an inherently distinctive trademark entitled to the highest degree of protection under trademark law. It submitted that the products sold under the mark generated substantial revenues and enjoyed extensive market reputation across India.

The company placed before the Court details of its advertising and promotional expenditure, stating that it had invested heavily in marketing and brand promotion over the years. The marketing expenditure reportedly exceeded Rs. 85,000,000 in 2019 and remained consistently high in subsequent years.

GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited further stated that “CALPOL” products had received widespread coverage in medical journals, pharmacy guides, newspapers and online platforms. It pointed out that internet searches for “CALPOL” generated results linked exclusively to its products, reinforcing the mark’s distinctiveness.

It was also submitted that GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited is the registered proprietor of the marks “CALPOL” and “CALPOL FAST”, with the oldest Indian registration for “CALPOL” dating back to July 13, 1965 in Class-5 for pharmaceutical preparations.

The company alleged that in September 2024 it discovered Walter Healthcare Private Limited’s trademark application for “WALPOL”. Upon investigation, it found that Walter Healthcare Private Limited was marketing pharmaceutical products through websites using the “WALPOL” mark, which according to GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited was deceptively similar to “CALPOL”.

GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited argued that the rival marks were nearly identical, differing only in the first letter. It contended that both marks comprised six letters, five of which were identical, and both ended with the suffix “POL”. Since the products were pharmaceutical goods sold through common trade channels to common consumers, the company argued that confusion among consumers was inevitable.

The company also informed the Court that it had issued a cease-and-desist notice to Walter Healthcare Private Limited before instituting the suit.

The judgment records that no one appeared on behalf of Walter Healthcare Private Limited during the proceedings before the Court at the stage of final decision.

However, during the pendency of the suit, GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited and Walter Healthcare Private Limited amicably resolved their disputes. As recorded by the Court, Walter Healthcare Private Limited agreed to discontinue use of the impugned mark “WALPOL” and any deceptively similar mark, suffer a permanent injunction and pay damages amounting to Rs. 2 lakh within three months.

Walter Healthcare Private Limited also agreed to withdraw trademark application No. 5753703 for registration of the “WALPOL” mark, if it had not already been withdrawn.

The Court observed that GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited had successfully demonstrated extensive use, promotion, recognition and enforcement of the “CALPOL” mark over several decades.

Justice Jyoti Singh noted, “The trademark CALPOL has acquired extensive recognition and association within the relevant section of the public in the concerned industry with respect to pharmaceutical and medicinal products in its long journey of over 35 years commencing from the year 1991.”

The Court further observed that GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited had achieved significant commercial success and consumer recognition. Referring to the sales figures and brand visibility, the Court stated, “Sales turnover has shown an exponential increase with sales exceeding Rs. 300 crores in the year 2024 alone and number of pack units sold exceeding 20 crores.”

The judgment also highlighted the company’s substantial investments in promotion and advertising. According to the Court, “Investment on marketing/advertising and promotional material is also reflective of Plaintiff's formidable and enviable reputation and goodwill in the mark CALPOL.”

The Court took note of extensive media coverage of the brand in publications such as Print, Business Standard, Economic Times and pharmacy journals, as well as the widespread availability of CALPOL products across pharmacies and online marketplaces throughout India.

Justice Jyoti Singh additionally referred to a UK press release dated April 30, 2026, where CALPOL was featured among the public’s top 10 iconic British trademarks.

The Court concluded, “Plaintiff's long standing reputation and extensive, continuous and uninterrupted use of the mark CALPOL across India reflects its significant commercial presence and recognition and is testament of its distinctiveness in the field of medicine and pharmaceutical products, both for adults and children.”

Holding that GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited had satisfied all statutory criteria under Sections 11(6) and 11(7) of the Trade Marks Act, the Court ruled that the trademark deserved recognition as a well-known mark.

The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favour of GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited in terms of the settlement reached between the parties. The Court permanently restrained Walter Healthcare Private Limited from using the “WALPOL” mark or any other deceptively similar mark in relation to medicinal and pharmaceutical products.

Walter Healthcare Private Limited was also directed to pay Rs. 2 lakh as damages within three months and withdraw its trademark application for “WALPOL”.

Allowing GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited’s prayer under paragraph 54(g) of the plaint, the Court declared “CALPOL” a well-known trademark under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The Court held, “Accordingly, trademark CALPOL is declared as a well-known trademark in terms of prayer 54(g) of the plaint within the meaning of Section 2(1)(zg) of the 1999 Act.”

To view the official order, click the link below: