Sun Pharma Loses Trademark Battle as Bombay HC Finds EsiRaft, Raciraft Not Deceptively Similar

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has set aside the interim injunction granted earlier in the trademark infringement and passing-off dispute between Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited and Meghmani Lifesciences Limited, holding that the rival pharmaceutical marks RACIRAFT and EsiRaft are prima facie not deceptively similar.

The ruling was delivered by Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh on December 23, 2025, while deciding Interim Application (L) No. 9484 of 2025 in Commercial IP (L) No. 353 of 2025.

The dispute arose from Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited’s allegation that Meghmani Lifesciences Limited had infringed its registered trademark “RACIRAFT” by marketing a competing medicinal product under the mark “EsiRaft”. Both products are oral suspensions used for the treatment of heartburn and indigestion, and contain identical active ingredients—Sodium Alginate, Sodium Bicarbonate, and Calcium Carbonate. Sun Pharma claimed that the similarity between the marks, coupled with the identical therapeutic use, was likely to mislead consumers and constituted both trademark infringement and passing off.

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited adopted the trademark “RACIRAFT” in January 2022 and secured registration in Class 5. According to the company, the mark is an arbitrarily coined word combining “RACI” (derived from “racy,” implying vigour) and “RAFT” (referring to the foam-like formation created by sodium alginate). Sun Pharma placed reliance on its commercial success, citing sales of approximately ₹11.85 crore in 2022–23 and ₹24.49 crore in 2023–24. The company approached the court after discovering Meghmani’s use of the mark “EsiRaft”, alleging dishonest adoption and deliberate imitation.

Sun Pharma contended that “EsiRaft” was visually, structurally, and phonetically similar to its registered mark “RACIRAFT”. It argued that the similarity was aggravated by the use of a two-colour combination in depicting the mark, allegedly mirroring Sun Pharma’s branding. The company further alleged bad faith adoption, pointing out that Defendant No. 2, the manufacturer of Meghmani’s product, was also manufacturing Sun Pharma’s product under a contractual arrangement that restricted the manufacture of deceptively similar products for third parties. Emphasising that the products were medicinal preparations, Sun Pharma argued that even a slight possibility of confusion warranted injunctive relief, relying on settled principles laid down in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Meghmani Lifesciences Limited, on the other hand, argued that the common element “RAFT” was generic and descriptive, as it denotes the raft-like foam formation produced by sodium alginate, a known component in such formulations. The company asserted that no exclusivity could be claimed over the suffix “RAFT,” which was widely used in the pharmaceutical trade. Meghmani further submitted that the prefixes “RACI” and “ESI” were visually and phonetically distinct, with “ESI” pronounced as “easy,” unlike “RACI,” which begins with a consonant sound. It also pointed out that Sun Pharma’s trademark registration was for a word mark, not for any colour combination, and therefore no monopoly could be claimed over the use of colours. Meghmani explained that “ESI” stood for Enhanced System Improvement and Esophageal Symptom Index, offering a bona fide justification for adoption of the mark. It also highlighted that it had been marketing its product since July 2024 and had achieved substantial sales without any proven confusion in the market.

After examining the rival submissions, the Bombay High Court held that the marks must be assessed as a whole, applying the anti-dissection rule and the perspective of an average consumer with imperfect recollection. The Court observed that while both marks shared the word “RAFT,” the prefixes “RACI” and “ESI” were distinct in appearance, structure, and pronunciation. It found that the opening syllables of the two marks were completely different and unlikely to be confused, even by a less-informed consumer.

The Court also noted that “RAFT” was indicative of the foaming action caused by sodium alginate and thus had a descriptive element. It held that the mere use of a two-colour combination was insufficient, at the interim stage, to establish deceptive similarity, particularly when such usage appeared common in the trade. Importantly, the Court observed that the Registrar of Trade Marks had not cited “RACIRAFT” as a conflicting mark during examination of Meghmani’s application, indicating prima facie dissimilarity. On the allegation of dishonest adoption, the Court accepted Meghmani’s explanation for the prefix “ESI” and rejected the argument that a common manufacturer, by itself, established bad faith.

In its operative directions, the Court ordered as follows:

“In light of the above discussion, the Plaintiff has failed to make out prima facie case of infringement of trade mark and passing off. In the absence of any deceptive similarity prima facie being demonstrated, the Defendant No 1 cannot be restrained from use of the impugned mark which has been adopted and in use by the Defendant No 1 since July, 2024. The ad-interim relief granted vide order dated 7th April, 2025 stands vacated. Interim application stands dismissed.”

The Court, however, granted a one-week extension of the ad-interim relief from the date of uploading of the order, despite opposition from Meghmani Lifesciences Limited, to enable Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited to take appropriate further steps.

To view the official order, click the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/ordersun-pharma-v-meghmani-lifesciencebomhc-644172-319109.pdf