Sun Pharma Gets Relief As Delhi HC Bars Use of BERIVITAL, BEZOLIC, DOZE-30 For Trademark Infringement

The suit was filed by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. seeking a permanent injunction for trademark infringement, passing off, unfair competition, rendition of accounts, and delivery up. The plaintiffs are well-established pharmaceutical companies with operations in over 100 countries, offering a wide range of products under their trademarks ‘SUN’, ‘SUN PHARMA’, and other well-known registered marks including ‘REVITAL’, ‘DAZOLIC’, and ‘DUOZ’.

Sun Pharma claimed it became aware in November 2024 of Janricsan Pharma’s trademark application for ‘BERIVITAL’, which allegedly infringed its mark ‘REVITAL’. Further investigation revealed that Janricsan Pharma and its associates were also marketing products under the marks ‘BEZOLIC’ and ‘DOZE-30’, which Sun argued were deceptively similar to its marks ‘DAZOLIC’ and ‘DUOZ’.

Sun Pharma submitted that its trademarks ‘REVITAL’, ‘DAZOLIC’, and ‘DUOZ’ are registered, widely advertised, and enjoy substantial goodwill. The plaintiffs contended that:

1. The impugned marks 'BERIVITAL', 'BEZOLIC', and 'DOZE-30' were visually, phonetically, and structurally similar.

2. The differences were merely cosmetic and intended to mislead the public into associating the defendants’ products with Sun Pharma.

3. Given the identical customer base and marketing channels, the likelihood of confusion was high and dangerous in the context of pharmaceutical products.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee agreed with the plaintiffs’ arguments, observing that;

A prima facie comparison of the marks 'REVITAL' and 'BERIVITAL' reveals that all that the defendants have done is to add a prefix 'BE' to the plaintiffs' trademark as also replaced the alphabet 'E' with 'I' to come up with the impugned mark 'BERIVITAL'.

On comparing ‘DAZOLIC’ with ‘BEZOLIC’ and ‘DUOZ’ with ‘DOZE-30’, the Court held;

Similarly, a comparison of the impugned mark 'DAZOLIC' with 'BEZOLIC' of the plaintiffs reveals that all that the defendants have done is to remove the first two alphabets i.e. 'DA' from the plaintiffs' trademark and replace it with the alphabets 'BE' of the plaintiffs, but has retained the remaining.

Like the two impugned marks above, a comparison of the impugned mark 'DUOZ' with 'DOZE-30' of the plaintiffs also reveals that the defendants have tried to create a similar sounding mark by jumbling up the alphabets of the plaintiffs' trademark.

Therefore, from the aforesaid comparison of each of the aforesaid three impugned marks with those of the plaintiffs, it is borne out that the defendants have tried to come as close as possible to the plaintiffs' trademark by making cosmetic, in fact, miniscule changes, however, they are not only visually, phonetically but also structurally similar to those of the plaintiffs' trademarks. Such cosmetic changes are insignificant as they can barely be of any relevance or can be taken note of as the products sold under the impugned marks are likely to be perceived as yet another variant emanating from the plaintiffs and to be falsely associated with the trademarks of the plaintiffs.

In view thereof, there can hardly be any doubt in the minds of the general public as also the customers, that the impugned marks 'BERIVITAL', 'BEZOLIC' and 'DOZE-30' of the defendants are deceptively similar to that of the trademarks 'REVITAL', 'DAZOLIC' and 'DUOZ' of the plaintiffs respectively, especially, whence viewed from the lens of an average man with imperfect recollection from the general public or someone belonging to the trade. There exists a high degree of resemblance inter se the competing marks which might lead the commoners starting to believe that there exists some semblance of a relation/ connection inter se the plaintiffs and the defendants, when actually there is none.

Importantly, the Court underlined the need for stricter scrutiny in pharmaceutical trademark cases;

“Any deceptive similarity and confusion between trademarks for products involving pharmaceutical preparations could have dangerous implications and cause detriment to the public at large.”

Finding a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs, the Court held;

“There exists a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs and with balance of convenience tilting in their favour and they will incur irreparable loss and injury if an ad interim injunction is not granted...”

Accordingly, the Court restrained all defendants and associated parties;

Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid, as also keeping in mind the existing position of law, till the next date of hearing, the defendants, their directors, their proprietor, their assignee in business, their officers, employees, dealers, associates, affiliates, licensees, franchisee, distributors, servants, dealers, stockists, retailers, super-stockists, e-commerce and warehouse aggregators, wholesalers, custodians, agents, chemists and all persons claiming through and/ or under them or acting on their behalf are restrained from manufacturing, stocking, selling, offering for sale, advertising, distributing, marketing, exhibiting for sale, trading in or otherwise directly or indirectly dealing in medicinal preparations or similar or like or allied goods under the impugned marks 'BERIVITAL', 'BEZOLIC' and 'DOZE-30', or any other extensions and/ or any other trademarks as may be identical with and/ or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered trademarks 'REVITAL', 'DAZOLIC' and 'DUOZ', thereby amounting to infringement.

The defendants have been directed to file their replies within four weeks. The matter will be next heard on November 26, 2025.

To view the original judgement, click on the link below:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/45502767/