Bombay HC Grants Relief to Sun Pharma in RACIRAFT Row, Flags Risk of Confusion with ESIRAFT

The Court ruled that despite some visual differences, the phonetic similarity and likelihood of confusion, especially in the context of medicinal products, warrant protection of the appellant’s trademark and grant of injunction.

The judgment was delivered on April 8, 2026, by a Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande in Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited vs Meghmani Lifesciences Limited, setting aside the order of the Single Judge dated December 23, 2025, which had vacated the ad-interim injunction earlier granted in favour of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited.

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a leading pharmaceutical company, claimed ownership of the trademark “RACIRAFT,” coined in January 2022 and used since June 2022 for a medicinal oral suspension containing Sodium Alginate, Sodium Bicarbonate, and Calcium Carbonate for treating heartburn and indigestion. The company asserted that the mark is a coined and inherently distinctive expression.

In February 2025, Sun Pharma discovered that Meghmani Lifesciences Limited had launched a similar product under the mark “ESIRAFT,” allegedly for identical therapeutic use and composition. Claiming that the impugned mark was visually, structurally, and phonetically similar, Sun Pharma filed a commercial suit seeking injunction for trademark infringement and passing off. While an ad-interim injunction was initially granted on April 7, 2025, the Single Judge later vacated the same, holding that no deceptive similarity was established, prompting the present appeal.

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited argued that “RACIRAFT” is a coined and distinctive trademark entitled to a high degree of protection. It contended that the marks “RACIRAFT” and “ESIRAFT” are deceptively similar when assessed as a whole, particularly from the perspective of an average consumer with imperfect recollection.

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited emphasized that the phonetic similarity between the rival marks is significant and likely to cause confusion among consumers, particularly when assessed from the perspective of an average purchaser with imperfect recollection. It argued that the anti-dissection rule was ignored by the Single Judge, as the marks were improperly broken into parts instead of being compared as a whole. The company further contended that in the case of pharmaceutical products, even the slightest possibility of confusion must be avoided due to serious health risks. It also alleged that Meghmani Lifesciences Limited had adopted a similar mark and presentation dishonestly.

Meghmani Lifesciences Limited opposed the appeal, arguing that the scope of appellate interference in discretionary orders is limited. It contended that the Single Judge’s findings were neither perverse nor arbitrary.

The company submitted that the term “RAFT” is generic and descriptive in the pharmaceutical industry, referring to a foam-forming mechanism, and therefore cannot be monopolized by any single entity. It further pointed out that Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited itself had admitted that it does not claim exclusivity over the term “RAFT.” Emphasizing industry practice, it argued that several other trademarks in the market incorporate “RAFT,” demonstrating its common usage in trade. The company also contended that the prefixes “RACI” and “ESI” are clearly distinct, both visually and phonetically, and are sufficient to differentiate the rival marks.

The Division Bench undertook a detailed analysis of the principles governing deceptive similarity, especially in pharmaceutical trademarks.

The Court reiterated that trademarks must be compared as a whole from the viewpoint of an average consumer with imperfect recollection, rather than being dissected into individual parts. It further emphasized that a stricter test is required in cases involving medicinal products due to the potential health consequences arising from confusion. In such matters, even a mere possibility of confusion is sufficient to attract protection, unlike in cases involving ordinary consumer goods.

While acknowledging that “RAFT” is a common or descriptive element, the Court held that phonetic similarity plays a crucial role. It observed that despite visual differences in prefixes, the overall sound and structure of “RACIRAFT” and “ESIRAFT” are close enough to create confusion, particularly in real-world conditions such as hurried pronunciation, handwritten prescriptions, or verbal communication.

The Court found that the Single Judge failed to properly apply the test laid down in the Cadila judgment, which mandates a stricter approach for pharmaceutical products. It held that this failure amounted to a legal error justifying appellate interference.

Allowing the appeal, the Court set aside the impugned order of the Single Judge and restored protection in favour of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited.

The Court held:

"In our view 'RACIRAFT' is deceptively similar to 'ESIRAFT' of the Respondent and though visually there may be dis-similarity in their prefixes, the phonetic similarity and the possibility of confusion on its mis- pronunciation , satisfy the test of deceptive similarity. To allow any such confusion to continue shall be against public interest and in the wake of aforesaid reasoning, we disagree with the findings rendered by the learned Single Judge and deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order as the learned Single Judge has failed to apply the test for granting injunction by applying the similarity test applicable to pharmaceutical products and since there is a failure to apply the said test at the stage of grant of injunction, according to us, an illegality has occasioned, and in an attempt to set aside the order, we are not adopting a J-ComsApeal-44382-2025.odt merely possible view, but our view is based upon the test laid down in Cadila Health Care (supra), and, therefore, by setting aside the impugned Judgment/Order dated 23/12/2025, we allow the Appeal filed by the Appellant."

To view the court order, click the link below: