Intas Gets Interim Relief from Delhi HC in Sun Pharma Cancer Drug Trademark Row, Allows Sale of Existing BEVATAS Stock

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited by allowing it to continue selling its existing stock of the cancer drug BEVATAS, even as it challenges a judgement that found the mark infringed the trademark rights of Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited over its registered brand BEVETEX.

A Division Bench comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora passed the order on April 6, 2026 while hearing an appeal filed by Intas against a March 28, 2026 judgment of a Single Judge.

The case concerns a trademark dispute between two major pharmaceutical companies over the use of similar brand names for oncology medicines. The controversy revolves around Sun Pharma's registered trademark "BEVETEX" and Intas' product marketed under the name "BEVATAS."

A Single Judge of the Delhi High Court had earlier ruled that Intas' use of the mark "BEVATAS" amounted to trademark infringement and permanently restrained the company from manufacturing, selling, marketing, advertising, or dealing in pharmaceutical products under the disputed name. Challenging that decision, Intas approached the Division Bench, arguing that the injunction could adversely affect thousands of cancer patients who are currently dependent on the drug.

The appeal therefore raised not only trademark law issues but also questions relating to public interest, continuity of treatment for cancer patients, and the practical consequences of changing the name of a life-saving biologic medicine already in circulation.

The dispute originates from a commercial trademark suit, CS (COMM.) 39/2023, filed by Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited against Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited.

In its judgment dated March 28, 2026, the Single Judge concluded that Sun Pharma was the registered proprietor and prior user of the trademark "BEVETEX" and that Intas' use of "BEVATAS" infringed Sun Pharma's rights.

The findings of the Single Judge, reproduced by the Division Bench, stated:

"46. In view of the above, it is declared that:

i. The Plaintiff is the registered proprietor and continuous as well as prior user of the Plaintiff's Mark, 'BEVETEX';

ii. The Plaintiff is not guilty of hoarding the Plaintiff's Mark, 'BEVETEX'; and

iii. The Defendant's use of the Impugned Mark, 'BEVATAS' amounts to infringement of the Plaintiff's Mark, 'BEVETEX'."

The Single Judge further ordered:

"47. In view of the above, 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'."

The court had also noted:

"48. As the Plaintiff has stated that this Suit is in Public Interest, there shall be no order as to costs."

"49. Accordingly, the Suit is decreed in terms of the above directions. Let the Decree Sheet be drawn up accordingly. The Suit stands disposed of."

Following this decree, Intas moved the Division Bench through a Regular First Appeal seeking relief from the injunction.

Senior Advocates Sandeep Sethi and Amit Sibal, appearing for Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited, mounted a strong challenge to the Single Judge's findings, particularly on the issue of public interest.

According to Intas, the Single Judge failed to appreciate the regulatory framework governing the products involved. The company argued that both BEVATAS and BEVETEX are Schedule H prescription medicines and cannot be purchased over the counter. Since these medicines can only be prescribed by qualified oncologists, the likelihood of confusion among ordinary consumers was substantially reduced.

The appellant specifically argued the following:

"The learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the drugs of both, the appellant and the respondent are scheduled H drugs and cannot be sold off the shelf but only on prescription from a qualified Oncologist."

Intas further submitted that the court had not adequately weighed public interest considerations. It stressed that BEVATAS is a life-saving cancer treatment that has remained continuously available in the market since 2016 and is currently being used by a large number of patients undergoing oncology treatment.

The company argued:

"Public interest was against restraining the appellant/defendant's life saving biological product BEVATAS, which has been in the market continuously since 2016, serving more than 12,000 ongoing cancer patients, and cannot be discontinued in view of the vast number of cancer patients being treated with it."

A key part of Intas' argument was that BEVATAS is a biologic medicine. Unlike many conventional drugs, biologic therapies often cannot be freely substituted without clinical considerations. Therefore, the company contended that forcing patients to switch products could expose them to medical risks and adverse consequences.

Intas submitted:

"BEVATAS is a biologic product and cannot be substituted with any other brand by the existing patients, which may expose them to the risk of serious side effects, being a paramount concern while evaluating public interest."

When the possibility of changing the drug's name was discussed, Intas informed the court that any such change would require regulatory approvals and statutory clearances and could take at least a year to complete. Pending such approvals, it argued that it should not be prevented from manufacturing and selling the drug.

Appearing for Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited, advocate Sachin Gupta proposed a possible solution to the dispute.

Sun Pharma informed the court that it would be satisfied if Intas modified the disputed brand name from BEVATAS to BEVAITAS by inserting the letter "I" between the letters "A" and "T". According to the respondent, such a modification could adequately distinguish the mark from BEVETEX while allowing Intas to continue marketing its product.

The respondent also pointed out that Intas already had another product bearing the brand name BEVAMAB 400, suggesting that the company could continue marketing the medicine under that alternative name.

The court recorded Sun Pharma's submission that

"The appellant also has an identical drug with the brand name BEVAMAB 400 and they shall be within their rights to sell the impugned drug under the brand name BEVAMAB 400."

Further, Sun Pharma sought to counter Intas' public interest argument by producing a list of companies manufacturing identical medicines. According to the respondent, patients would not be deprived of treatment even if Intas was prevented from using the disputed mark because several alternative manufacturers were available in the market.

The respondent therefore maintained that continued availability of therapy could not justify infringement of an existing registered trademark.

The Division Bench did not immediately adjudicate the merits of the trademark dispute but focused on balancing competing interests, namely trademark protection, patient welfare, and practical regulatory considerations.

The court noted the proposal advanced by Sun Pharma regarding a possible name change and the concerns expressed by Intas regarding the time required to secure statutory approvals. Recognising that the issue involved regulatory implications beyond a simple rebranding exercise, the Bench sought additional factual information before taking a final view.

The court observed that Intas should formally state whether it was willing to adopt the suggested alternative name and provide a realistic timeline for obtaining approvals.

Accordingly, the bench directed the following:

"An affidavit shall be filed by the appellant, after taking instructions, whether the appellant is ready and willing to change the name of drug as suggested by Mr. Gupta and also the specific timelines required to seek the statutory approvals in the eventuality the name of the drug undergoes a change."

The court also considered it necessary to obtain complete details of the existing inventory and therefore directed that the affidavit should disclose available stocks along with manufacturing dates and batch numbers.

At the same time, the Bench took note of Sun Pharma's submission that several other manufacturers produced the same medicine, a factor relevant to the public interest argument raised by Intas.

Pending further hearing of the appeal, the Delhi High Court granted limited interim protection to Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited.

The bench made it clear that the pendency of the appeal would not prevent Intas from selling its existing inventory of BEVATAS, subject to maintenance of proper records and accounts.

The court ordered:

"We make it clear that the pendency of the present appeal and the order passed today shall not preclude the appellant to sell the existing stock provided they maintain the record/accounts."

The court also directed Intas to file an affidavit specifying:

• Whether it is willing to change the name of the drug to the alternative suggested by Sun Pharma;
• The time required to obtain statutory approvals for such a change; and
• Details of existing stock, including manufacturing dates and batch numbers.

To view the court order, click the link below: