Intas Pharma Barred from Using Cancer Drug Brand BEVATAS Similar to Sun Pharma's BEVETEX

New Delhi: In a significant ruling on pharmaceutical trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court in the case of Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited vs Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited has granted a permanent injunction in favour of Sun Pharma, restraining Intas from using the mark BEVATAS for its cancer drug, holding it to be deceptively similar to Sun Pharma's registered trademark BEVETEX.

The case revolves around a trademark dispute concerning two oncology drugs marketed under similar-sounding names. Sun Pharma, the plaintiff, sought a permanent injunction against Intas Pharmaceuticals, alleging infringement of its registered trademark “BEVETEX”, along with claims of passing off, unfair competition, and dilution.

The drug sold under “BEVETEX” is used for treating breast cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, and pancreatic cancer, whereas Intas marketed its drug under the mark “BEVATAS” for treating several cancers, including colorectal, ovarian, cervical, and lung cancer. The dispute has a long procedural history beginning in 2018 before the Trial Court, which had initially denied interim relief. Subsequent appeals, including a Special Leave Petition, were dismissed, and the matter eventually came before the High Court for final adjudication.

The petitioner, Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited, argued that it is the registered proprietor and prior user of the trademark “BEVETEX”, which was coined in 1983 and registered under the Trade Marks Act. The company emphasized its global presence, extensive goodwill, and significant investment in promoting the drug since its commercial launch in 2015. It contended that the defendant’s mark “BEVATAS” is structurally, visually, and phonetically similar, thereby creating a likelihood of confusion, especially given that both drugs are injectable cancer treatments sold in similar dosage forms and price ranges. The petitioner stressed the grave public health risks, arguing that confusion between two oncology drugs could lead to fatal consequences due to differences in composition and therapeutic effects. It further argued that even trained professionals and pharmacists may be misled due to similarity in names and that courts must adopt a stricter standard in pharmaceutical trademark cases.

On the other hand, the defendant, Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited, denied any infringement and argued that the marks “BEVETEX” and “BEVATAS” are entirely distinct when considered as a whole. It maintained that its mark was derived from the active ingredient “Bevacizumab” and its corporate name “Intas”, and that it had obtained all regulatory approvals prior to launching the drug in 2016. The defendant highlighted that the two drugs differ significantly in composition, therapeutic use, dosage, administration, and pricing. It further argued that both drugs are Schedule-H prescription drugs administered only under expert supervision in controlled medical environments, thereby minimizing any possibility of confusion. Additionally, the defendant accused the plaintiff of “hoarding” its trademark due to non-use between 1983 and 2015 and claimed lack of goodwill and delayed action by the plaintiff.

After considering detailed submissions and evidence from both sides, the Court observed that Sun Pharma is the registered proprietor and prior user of the trademark “BEVETEX” and that the mark is inherently distinctive and entitled to the highest degree of protection. The Court held that the competing marks are deceptively similar, particularly noting the similarity in their structure and phonetics, and emphasized that an average consumer with imperfect recollection is likely to be confused.

Importantly, the Court reiterated that in pharmaceutical cases, a stricter approach must be adopted due to the potential risk to public health. It rejected the defendant’s argument that prescription-based sale reduces confusion, noting that the risk persists at multiple stages including dispensing and purchase. The Court also dismissed the defence of non-use and hoarding, stating that as long as a trademark remains validly registered, the proprietor is entitled to protection against infringement.

Finally, the Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff and granted a permanent injunction. The operative part of the judgment states:

“The Defendant or anyone acting on its behalf are permanently injuncted and restrained from manufacturing, selling, or offering for sale, marketing, advertising, or in any other manner dealing with medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations for human use using the Impugned Mark, 'BEVATAS' or any other Mark identical and / or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's Mark, 'BEVETEX'.”

To view the official order, click the link below: