Delhi High Court rules in favour of Dr Reddy's Labs in trademark row with Razenta

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has asked the registrar of trademarks to remove Indore-based Razenta Pharmaceuticals' Daplogin trademark as it is "deceptively" similar to Dr Reddy's Labs' Daplo trademark. The court said that the rival products under the two marks are identical with the same API (active pharmaceutical ingredient) and are used for treating Type-2 diabetes Mellitus.

Directing the registrar of trademarks to rectify its register by cancelling Razenta's trademark Daplogin within six weeks, justice Jyoti Singh said that the fact that both the medicines used by Razenta and Dr Reddy's are prescription drugs is not enough to dispel the likelihood of confusion and, therefore, the registration of the mark Daplogin falls foul of Section 9(1)(a) and Section 9(2)(a) and Section 11(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Also Read: Lupin arm to commercialise YUVEZZI eye drop across key European markets


It is settled that phonetic similarity or pronunciation can cause huge confusion at the time of purchase of the product, which must be avoided at all cost, she said.

Owing to the investments made, revenues earned as also the goodwill and popularity of the mark DAPLO, it satisfies all parameters for being declared as a well-known mark as per Section 11(6) and within the meaning of Section2(1)(zg) of the Act, the court said.

Also Read: Pharma giant Cipla completes merger with wholly-owned subsidiary Inzpera Health Sciences

"Therefore, any use of this distinctive trademark by any other person or entity without the express permission of Dr Reddy's, will inevitably lead to confusion in the eyes of consumers, trade members and public at large. Dr Reddy's has statutory and common law rights in the mark DAPLO and use of an identical/deceptively similar mark in any manner in relation to its product without leave and license, will amount to infringement of the mark as also passing off and registration of any mark by a third party which is identical or deceptively similar to DAPLO mark, will therefore be invalid and liable to cancellation," according to the HC.