In a recent trademark infringement case involving Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited (“Dr. Reddy’s”) and Rebanta Healthcare Pvt Ltd and another defendant (collectively “Rebanta”), the Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Dr. Reddy’s. Dr. Reddy’s sought a permanent injunction to restrain Rebanta from using the trademark “REBAHEAL” claiming that Rebanta’s use of the identical mark infringed upon Dr. Reddy’s statutory and common law rights.
Dr. Reddy’s claimed that it is the registered proprietor of the “REBAHEAL” trademark, which it coined and has been using since June 2023 for a product containing the active ingredient Rebamipide, intended for the treatment of peptic and mouth ulcers.
In June 2024, Dr. Reddy’s discovered that Rebanta was manufacturing, marketing, and selling pharmaceutical products under the “REBAHEAL” mark. Considering that the defendants were using the mark “REBAHEAL” for a product for the treatment of pain, regulating menstruation, and aiding bone repair, Dr. Reddy’s contended that the dishonest, adoption of an identical mark by Rebanta could result in disastrous consequences if the wrong product was dispensed, prescribed, or taken.
Dr. Reddy’s also contended that Rebanta’s use of the identical mark “REBAHEAL” constituted trademark infringement and passing off, and Rebanta was trying to benefit from the established reputation and goodwill of “REBAHEAL” by adopting an identical trademark.
In view of the contentions put forth by the parties, the Hon’ble Court observed that the Dr. Reddy’s had made a strong prima facie case for themselves, and the balance of convenience lay in their favor. While pronouncing its decision, the Court observed as follows:
- The said marks were visually and phonetically identical, likely to cause confusion and deception among the public, doctors and chemists.
- The said products treat different ailments, and this confusion could lead to serious health risks if the wrong medicine was taken.
- The said products target the same consumer base, thus increasing the likelihood of confusion.
Accordingly, the court issued an order restraining Rebanta from manufacturing, marketing, or selling any products under the “REBAHEAL” mark or any other mark deceptively similar to Dr. Reddy’s trademark until the next hearing.
Authored by Ms. Ilana Baruah, Consulting and Strategy Team, BananaIP Counsels
Citation: Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited v. Rebanta Healthcare Pvt Ltd & Anr, Delhi High Court, 9th July, 2024, [CS(COMM) 553/2024 & I.A. Nos. 32621/2024, 32622/2024, 32623/2024 & 32624/2024] Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/145689256/
Disclaimer
The case note/s in this blog post have been written by IP Attorneys at BananaIP Counsels based on their review and understanding of the Judgments. It may be noted that other IP attorneys and experts in the field may have different opinions about the cases or arrive at different conclusions therefrom. It is advisable to read the Judgments before making any decisions based on the case notes.
If you have any questions, or if you wish to speak with an IP expert/attorney, please reach us at: contact@bananaip.com or 91-80-26860414/24/34.
