Delhi HC restrains Dr Reddy's from manufacturing VENUSIA sunscreens with SUN label

The dispute centers on whether Dr Reddy’s use of the word “SUN” on its VENUSIA sunscreen range amounts to permissible descriptive use or infringes Sun Pharma’s well-known trademark “SUN”.

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, a leading pharmaceutical company operating in over 100 countries, approached the Delhi High Court alleging infringement of its registered and well-known trademark “SUN”. The company has been using the “SUN / SUN PHARMA” marks continuously since 1978 and reported a turnover of over ₹52,000 crore for FY 2024–25 under the mark. The “SUN” mark has also been judicially recognized as a well-known trademark and is listed as such by the Trade Marks Registry.

Sun Pharma submitted that while the word “sun” may be descriptively relevant for sunscreen products, Dr Reddy’s had deliberately used it in a bold, dominant, and visually striking manner, giving it the appearance of a trademark rather than a descriptor. The company argued that the font size, colour contrast and placement of “SUN” overshadowed Dr Reddy’s own brand name “VENUSIA”, thereby misleading consumers into believing an association with Sun Pharma.

Sun Pharma further contended that it already markets sunscreen products under its brand “SUNCROS”, derived from its well-known “SUN” trademark, and that Dr Reddy’s label design was likely to cause confusion in the market. Despite months of correspondence and multiple proposed revisions, Sun Pharma alleged that Dr Reddy’s failed to genuinely resolve the issue and continued manufacturing products under the impugned labels.

According to Sun Pharma, it discovered in June 2025 that Dr Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. had launched sunscreen products under its VENUSIA brand with labels prominently displaying the word “SUN”, including product variants such as “SUN TINT”, “SUN MINERAL” and “SUN AQUA”. Sun Pharma issued a cease-and-desist notice objecting to this usage, asserting that the presentation of “SUN” went far beyond descriptive use and amounted to trademark infringement and passing off.

Dr Reddy’s Laboratories, represented by senior counsel, maintained that its use of the word “SUN” was purely descriptive and protected under Section 30(2)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The company argued that Sun Pharma itself had acknowledged the need for descriptive use of the term in sunscreen products and that “SUN” was being used to describe product variants rather than as a source identifier.

Dr Reddy’s also submitted that it was willing to modify its labels to address Sun Pharma’s concerns and relied on the fact that other market players use the word “sun” in relation to similar products. It sought time to place revised mock-ups before the Court and opposed the grant of an immediate injunction.

After examining the impugned labels and hearing both sides, the Court found prima facie merit in Sun Pharma’s claims. The Court observed that the word “SUN” was printed in the largest font, boldest style and a different colour, making it the most striking feature of the label, while the brand name “VENUSIA” appeared comparatively subdued. The Court noted that sunscreen and sunscreen gel were already described separately on the packaging, weakening the argument that “SUN” was merely descriptive.

The Court held that such prominent use of “SUN” was suggestive of trademark use rather than bona fide descriptive use. It further observed that given Sun Pharma’s established reputation and the fact that both parties operate in identical product segments and trade channels, there was a clear likelihood of consumer confusion.

Relying on precedent, including Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. v. Cipla Health Ltd., the Court clarified that the defence of descriptive use under Section 30(2)(a) is not available where only a part of a mark is used prominently in a trademark sense. The Court also criticised Dr Reddy’s for repeatedly changing its stand, failing to produce acceptable revised labels, and attempting to delay resolution while continuing use of the impugned packaging.

In its operative directions, the Court ordered as follows:

“Accordingly, until the next date of hearing, the Defendants are directed to main status quo and not undertake any further manufacturing under the impugned labels.”

The Court reiterated this direction after noting the defendants’ inconsistent positions and added:

“Therefore, this Court reiterates its direction that the Defendants are directed to main status quo and not undertake any further manufacturing under the impugned labels.”

To view the official order, click the link below: