Pharma Firm Slapped Rs 15 Lakh for Infringing IPCA's ZERODOL Trademark

New Delhi: The Bombay High Court has permanently restrained Anrose Pharma from using the pharmaceutical trademark ZEROVOL-P, holding it to be deceptively similar to IPCA Laboratories' registered trademark ZERODOL.

The Court found Anrose Pharma’s adoption of the impugned mark to be dishonest, granted a permanent injunction, ordered destruction of infringing material, and imposed Rs 15 lakh as costs, citing the heightened public risk involved in medicinal products and the defendant’s complete non-participation in the proceedings.

The suit was instituted in 2013 by IPCA Laboratories Limited, a well-known pharmaceutical company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1913, seeking relief for trademark infringement and passing off. IPCA alleged that Anrose Pharma was manufacturing and selling medicinal products under the mark ‘ZEROVOL-P’, which was deceptively similar to its registered trademark ‘ZERODOL’, both being used for pain relief and pharmaceutical preparations.

At the initial stage, the High Court granted ex-parte ad-interim relief in October 2013, which was confirmed in December 2013. Despite service of summons in January 2014, the defendant failed to file a written statement or appear in the proceedings, leading the matter to be transferred to the list of undefended suits in July 2017. Evidence was led by IPCA through its Company Secretary, and the matter was finally heard and reserved in December 2025.

IPCA Laboratories submitted that it had coined and adopted the trademark ‘ZERODOL’ as early as 1992, with continuous commercial use since 2003. The company demonstrated extensive use through sales invoices, promotional expenditure, and turnover statements, establishing that ‘ZERODOL’ had acquired significant goodwill and distinctiveness in the pharmaceutical market.

The petitioner emphasized that it is the registered proprietor of the trademark ‘ZERODOL’ in Class 5, and that Anrose Pharma’s mark ‘ZEROVOL-P’ was phonetically, visually, and structurally similar, with ‘ZEROVOL’ being the dominant and essential feature. IPCA argued that such similarity in medicinal products poses a serious risk of confusion among doctors, chemists, and patients, thereby endangering public health.

Relying on Supreme Court and Bombay High Court precedents, IPCA contended that phonetic similarity alone is sufficient in pharmaceutical trademarks, especially considering consumers of average intelligence and imperfect recollection. It further alleged that the defendant’s adoption was dishonest, mala fide, and aimed at riding on IPCA’s goodwill.

On relief, IPCA sought permanent injunction, delivery-up and destruction of infringing goods, and exemplary costs, invoking Section 35 of the Civil Procedure Code as amended under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It also sought punitive damages, asserting that stricter deterrence is required in cases involving medicines.

Despite being duly served, Anrose Pharma neither entered appearance nor filed a written statement, did not cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness, and offered no explanation or defence regarding the adoption of the impugned mark. The Court noted that there was not even an attempt to claim honest or bona fide adoption, nor any legal justification for using ‘ZEROVOL-P’.

Justice Arif S. Doctor observed that IPCA had conclusively established its statutory rights, prior use, goodwill, and market reputation in the trademark ‘ZERODOL’. On comparison, the Court found the rival marks to be virtually identical, particularly in their phonetic structure, and held that the defendant’s mark was clearly adopted subsequent to IPCA’s registration and use.

The Court emphasized that in cases involving medicinal and pharmaceutical products, the threshold for deceptive similarity is far stricter, as even minimal confusion could have grave consequences for public health. The likelihood of confusion, the Court held, was not merely possible but imminent.

On costs, the Court took serious note of the defendant’s conduct—its failure to defend the suit despite service—and held that such conduct reinforced the inference of bad faith and dishonest adoption. While the Court declined to award damages due to lack of evidence quantifying loss, it held that the statutory mandate under Section 35 CPC required costs to follow the event, particularly in a commercial IP dispute involving medicines.

The Bombay High Court decreed the suit in favor of IPCA Laboratories, granting a permanent injunction restraining Anrose Pharma from using the mark ‘ZEROVOL-P’ or any deceptively similar mark and from passing off its goods as those of IPCA. The Court ordered the delivery-up and destruction of all infringing goods, packaging, and promotional material.

The defendant was directed to pay ₹15,00,000 as costs to IPCA within eight weeks, failing which interest at 8% per annum would apply. With these directions, the suit was disposed of.

Th court order stated,

"i. The Suit is decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (d).

ii. The Defendant shall pay costs of Rs. 15,00,000/- to the Plaintiff within a period of 8 weeks from today.

iii. In the event the costs are not paid within a period of 8 weeks from today, interest at the rate of 8% shall apply.

iv. The office shall return the original documents to the Advocate for the Plaintiff upon the Advocate of the Plaintiff handing over a true copy of this Order along with photostat copies of the said compilation of documents duly certified by them as true copies.

To view the official order, click the link below: