Delhi High Court: In a suit filed by Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited (‘Dr. Reddy’s’) seeking permanent injunction to restrain violation and infringement of trade mark, passing off, unfair trade competition, damages, rendition of accounts, dilution, delivery up, etc., a Single Judge Bench of Mini Pushkarna, J. held that Dr. Reddy’s would suffer irreparable loss and injury in case interim relief was not granted in his favor, and restrained the defendants from using the impugned trade mark or any other mark deceptively similar to “Rebaheal”.
Background
The present suit had been filed to protect Dr. Reddy’s common law rights and statutory rights in the mark “Rebaheal” which had been blatantly copied by the defendants.
The case in the present suit was that the defendants had illegally adopted and used an identical and similar mark to that of Dr. Reddy’s well-known registered trade mark “Rebaheal”, but for a different ailment and with a different composition.
It was submitted that Dr. Reddy’s product had a composition of “Rebamipide” which was used for the treatment of peptic ulcers and mouth ulcers. Whereas, the defendant’s product had a composition of “Cissus Queadrangularis Linn & Moringa Oleifera Extract Tab” which was used for the treatment of pain and helped in the regulation of menstruation and to repair bone fractures.
It was submitted that the adoption of the identical mark “Rebaheal” would result in disastrous consequences if one is mistakenly used for the other. Dr. Reddy’s also stated that the defendant’s use of a similar trade mark was clearly to infringe the statutory rights of the plaintiff and impersonate them to pass off its medical/pharmaceutical products as those of Dr. Reddy’s.
It was submitted that Dr. Reddy’s had adopted and coined the trade mark “Rebaheal” and launched its product in the market on 26-06-2023 for the treatment of peptic and mouth ulcers. It was submitted that Dr. Reddy’s was the registered proprietor of the trade mark in Class 5.
Consequently, Dr. Reddy’s stated that it had earned goodwill and reputation in the “Rebaheal” mark, which acted as a unique identifier of its products. It was submitted that the use of an identical trade mark would, in all likelihood, lead to deception among the customers that the products are connected or otherwise related to Dr. Reddy’s, and such confusion would not only impact the business of Dr. Reddy’s, but also the consumers, who would mistakenly buy the products bearing a similar mark.
Dr. Reddy’s submitted that on Google search, the only product that appeared by the name of “Rebaheal” was theirs which showed that Dr. Reddy’s mark enjoyed immense goodwill and reputation. It was also submitted that Dr. Reddy’s “Rebaheal” was marketed and sold all over the country through a vast chain of distributors, and was available at every chemist shop which resulted in widespread consumer and physician recognition.
It was also submitted that Dr. Reddy’s website received millions of hits per week from all over the world and the website contained widespread information about the plaintiff and its products.
It was submitted that in the last week of June 2024, Dr. Reddy’s representative came across the infringing activities of the defendants of manufacturing, marketing, and selling medical products for the treatment of pain, regulation of menstruation, and to repair bone fractures under the mark “Rebaheal”.
Analysis and Decision
The Court stated that Dr. Reddy’s had made out a prima facie case for the grant of interim relief in its favor. The Court said that incase the relief was not granted, Dr. Reddy’s was likely to suffer irreparable loss and injury to its goodwill and reputation.
The Court noted that the rival marks were visually and phonetically identical and that it would cause confusion and deception amongst the general public, doctors, and chemists. Further, the Court noted that the rival products were meant to provide for different ailments and would lead to serious health implications if the wrong medication is taken by the patients due to confusion.
The Court, while issuing notice to the defendants, directed them, and any other persons acting on their behalf to restrain from manufacturing, marketing, supplying, selling, and offering for sale including online means under the impugned trade mark and/or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s mark “Rebaheal” which may be likely to cause confusion or deception amounting to infringement/passing off of Dr. Reddy’s trade mark registrations.
The matter has been further listed on 13-11-2024.
[Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. v. Rebanta Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4910, Decided on 09-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Plaintiff — Advocate Ranjan Narula, Advocate Shaki Priyan Nair, Advocate Aishani Singh, Advocate Shivangi Kohli
For Defendants — None
