Sun Pharma's HISTAC, OMESEC Trademark Settlement Approved by Bombay HC
New Delhi: The Bombay High Court has approved a settlement in Sun Pharma's trademark suit against Nectar Life Care and Kashmik Formulations, restraining the defendants from using marks identical or deceptively similar to Sun Pharma's HISTAC and OMESEC.
The defendants also agreed to discontinue six disputed marks, withdraw their SNIZACT trademark application and pay Sun Pharma ₹1 lakh towards litigation costs.
Justice Madhav J. Jamdar passed the order on October 8, 2026, in Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 28038 of 2025. The court accepted the settlement statements as undertakings to the court and disposed of the suit and connected proceedings. The matter concluded through consent terms rather than a contested determination of the infringement allegations. sun-pharma-nectar-705706(2)
The dispute concerned pharmaceutical brand names that Sun Pharma alleged infringed its trademark rights or enabled products to be passed off as its own. The consent terms identify Nectar Life Care and Kashmik Formulations as sister concerns operating from Ahmedabad, Gujarat, with Nectar Life Care marketing generic medicines manufactured by Kashmik Formulations.
Sun Pharma sought permanent injunctions against Nectar Life Care and Kashmik Formulations concerning its registered HISTAC and OMESEC trademarks. HISTAC bears Registration No. 485074 in Class 5, while OMESEC bears Registration No. 488276 in the same class. The relief sought included restraining the use of L-HISTACT-M in relation to HISTAC and OMENEC in relation to OMESEC, together with other identical or deceptively similar marks.
The company also sought to prevent Nectar Life Care and Kashmik Formulations from manufacturing, stocking, selling, distributing, marketing, displaying or offering pharmaceutical products under the disputed marks in a manner that passed them off as Sun Pharma’s goods. The proposed restraints extended to persons acting through the two companies, including agents, stockists, distributors, wholesalers, retailers and other business associates.
The wider settlement addressed the disputed marks HISTACT, ENECT, OMENEC, PREDMIK, LUMIK and SNIZACT in relation to Sun Pharma’s HISTAC, EZACT, OMESEC, PREDMET, LUMIA and NEZACT marks. It also dealt with allegedly conflicting packaging and trade dress, online listings, trademark filings, destruction of remaining materials and litigation costs.
The consent terms refer to an earlier Bombay High Court order dated September 23, 2025. However, the supplied October 8 order does not reproduce that earlier ruling or provide a detailed account of how Sun Pharma first discovered the disputed products.
In their settlement commitments, Nectar Life Care and Kashmik Formulations acknowledged Sun Pharma’s ownership and rights in the registered HISTAC and OMESEC marks. Both companies undertook not to challenge the validity of those registrations or the status of the marks as well-known marks. They also agreed to the specified permanent injunctions concerning infringement and passing off.
At the same time, Nectar Life Care and Kashmik Formulations expressly entered into the settlement “without admission of any liability, infringement or wrongdoing,” stating that the agreement was intended to resolve the dispute amicably. Their acceptance of the restrictions therefore does not amount to a contested judicial finding that infringement had been proved.
Nectar Life Care and Kashmik Formulations undertook, from the date of execution of the consent terms, not to manufacture, market or distribute, directly or indirectly, products bearing HISTACT, ENECT, OMENEC, PREDMIK, LUMIK or SNIZACT, or marks comprising those names. Both companies further agreed not to adopt identical or deceptively similar trademarks or packaging in relation to Sun Pharma’s specified marks for medicinal, pharmaceutical, nutraceutical or related goods.
Regarding inventory, Nectar Life Care and Kashmik Formulations stated that no outstanding stock remained and manufacturing had ceased. In the clause addressing destruction sought under the plaint, the companies stated that manufacturing had stopped before institution of the suit. Nevertheless, Sun Pharma was permitted to inspect for any remaining disputed goods or materials.
If such materials were discovered, Nectar Life Care and Kashmik Formulations agreed to destroy them at their own expense in the presence of Sun Pharma’s authorised representatives. This obligation covered goods, packaging, foils, wrappers, outer cartons and promotional materials bearing the disputed marks. The settlement prescribed destruction within 30 days of execution and submission of a compliance report within seven days after destruction.
Nectar Life Care and Kashmik Formulations also stated that listings bearing the disputed marks had been removed from their websites and other online channels. For listings created on third-party websites, e-commerce platforms, business directories or social media at their request or direction, the companies undertook to procure removal within seven days of signing the consent terms.
For listings independently created by third parties outside their control, Nectar Life Care and Kashmik Formulations agreed to use their best endeavours to seek removal. The settlement clarified that failure or delay by such independent third parties would not, by itself, constitute a breach. Both companies also undertook not to undertake fresh production, procurement or replenishment of goods bearing the conflicting marks during this period.
The settlement provides for commercially reasonable efforts to meet the removal and destruction deadlines. Where delays arose from circumstances beyond their reasonable control, Nectar Life Care and Kashmik Formulations were required to promptly notify Sun Pharma, with an extension of 15 working days available to complete the relevant obligations.
Nectar Life Care specifically undertook to file a withdrawal application or request concerning the SNIZACT trademark filing bearing No. 6131511 in Class 5 within seven days of execution. Copies of the withdrawal request and acknowledgment were to be shared with Sun Pharma or its attorneys within seven days of that request.
Nectar Life Care and Kashmik Formulations confirmed that, apart from the SNIZACT filing, they had not sought registration of the specified disputed marks or corresponding conflicting copyright material. Both companies agreed to withdraw any such existing applications if found and provide the relevant documents to Sun Pharma.
The two companies further undertook to submit a written compliance letter within one month of execution of the consent terms, or immediately upon completion of destruction of stock and promotional materials, whichever occurred earlier. The settlement also binds associated entities and successors and prohibits circumvention through persons or businesses acting on their behalf.
As part of the financial settlement, Nectar Life Care and Kashmik Formulations issued a ₹1 lakh demand draft towards Sun Pharma’s costs of instituting the suit. The consent terms identify an Axis Bank demand draft dated September 2, 2026. During the hearing, counsel representing Nectar Life Care and Kashmik Formulations confirmed that the draft had been delivered to Sun Pharma’s counsel, who acknowledged receipt.
Sun Pharma reserved the right to pursue remedies available under law if Nectar Life Care or Kashmik Formulations subsequently violated its rights or engaged in contemptuous conduct. The settlement nevertheless constituted a full and final resolution of the disputes forming the subject matter of the suit, subject to its stated reservations.
Sun Pharma also agreed not to initiate or pursue civil, criminal or other proceedings against Nectar Life Care and Kashmik Formulations concerning manufacture, sale, distribution or dealings in the disputed products undertaken before the September 23, 2025 order. The consent terms additionally contain mutual non-disparagement and confidentiality provisions, subject to specified legal and professional disclosure exceptions.
While considering the settlement, the court recorded that Sun Pharma’s constituted attorney, Mayur Gautam, and Nileshkumar Mahadevbhai Patel, proprietor of Nectar Life Care and authorised signatory of Kashmik Formulations, appeared through video conferencing. Both confirmed that the dispute had been settled and that they had signed the consent terms. Their respective advocates also signed the document and identified the signatures.
The court took the consent terms on record and marked them “X” for identification. Its exact observation accepting the commitments reads:
“Various statements made in the Consent Terms are accepted as undertakings given to the Court.”
The court’s operative direction states:
“Accordingly, Commercial Intellectual Property Rights Suit (L) No.28038 of 2025 is decreed in terms of the Consent Terms.”
The court directed refund of court fees as per rules and discharged the Court Receiver without passing accounts, subject to Sun Pharma paying the Receiver’s costs, charges and expenses within two weeks of a demand from the Receiver’s office. Court Receiver Report No. 458 of 2025 was disposed of subject to payment of ₹5,000.
With the main suit concluded, the court also disposed of Interim Application (L) No. 28417 of 2025 in terms of the settlement. The final order thus gives effect to the restrictions and compliance commitments accepted by Nectar Life Care and Kashmik Formulations, while preserving their express position that the settlement involved no admission of liability, infringement or wrongdoing.
Also Read:Sun Pharma Gets Interim Court Relief in Pantocid Trademark Dispute
To view the order, click the link below:
