In a quiet corner of the bustling and competitive pharmaceutical industry, a storm was brewing over a trademark: “REBAHEAL”; a trusted remedy with a well-established reputation. The registered owner of ‘REBAHEAL' (Dr. Reddy's) discovered blatant and unauthorised use of the mark by the Defendants for their medicinal product aimed towards a different ailment thereby inviting consumer confusion and damaging its goodwill and reputation. To protect its rights and uphold its integrity, a lawsuit was filed seeking a permanent injunction against the unauthorized use and infringement of “REBAHEAL”, thereby claiming damages. The Plaintiff was therefore aggrieved by the probable trademark dilution, unfair competition. This legal battle was about more than a name; it was about preserving the trust and legacy built over years.
Factual Matrix
The Plaintiff adopted and coined the trademark “REBAHEAL” and launched its product on June 26, 2023. The product, designed to treat peptic ulcers and mouth ulcers, contains ‘Rebamipide' as its active ingredient. Since its launch, “REBAHEAL” became uniquely associated with the Plaintiff's products, building significant goodwill and reputation. However, in late June 2024, the Plaintiff discovered the unauthorised manufacturing and selling of products by the Defendants under the same mark, “REBAHEAL,” having different compositions and intended for treating pain, regulating menstruation, and repairing bone fractures. Consequently, a lawsuit was filed by the Plaintiff to protect its trademark rights and refrain the Defendants from passing off their products as those of the Plaintiff.
Submissions Before The Court
The primary contention of the Plaintiff related to the difference in the composition and the ailment which the parties in dispute aim to cure through their products. It was highlighted that the Plaintiff's product is a cure for peptic and mouth ulcers, the Defendants' products are for regulating menstruation and to repair bone fractures. It was submitted in relation thereof that if the Defendants are not refrained it shall be a call for a disaster in the event any consumer mistakenly buys one product in place of another.
The Plaintiff also harped upon the mark being a coined word and being inherently distinctive of the products and business of Plaintiff. Therefore, it was submitted that as the mark was used by the Plaintiff since 2013, the Defendants' registration and use of an identical mark was motivated by a desire to take advantage of Plaintiff's reputation. The Plaintiff also put forth the probability of loss and injury to its reptation and the distinctiveness of Plaintiff's ‘Rebaheal' going down the drain.
The Plaintiff also claimed that the Defendant's use of the similar trademark infringes on their statutory rights and attempts to pass off their products as those of the plaintiff.
The relief granted by the Delhi High Court in form of interim injunction can be understood in two segments-
(i) the interests of the Plaintiff and
(ii) the probable and consequential impact on the consumers and public.
In relation to the first segment, the Court took into consideration that the blatant use and adoption of identical mark by the Defendants was having the nature of impacting the Plaintiff's business directly. Another factor taken into consideration was the fact of registration and use of ‘REBAHEAL' by Plaintiff right from June 2023 and the direct association between the mark and the Plaintiff. In furtherance of the same, the Court granted relief to Plaintiff also on the fact of the Defendants' mark being registered in the same class of trademarks.
In relation to the second segment, one of the biggest grounds for the relief so granted was the two marks being visually and phonetically identical and the likelihood of confusion. It was noted in relation thereof that the identical nature of the two marks (being used for two different ailments) will lead to confusion and deception amongst the public, doctors and chemists.
Consequentially, the same will lead to serious health implications, if on account of confusion, wrong medicine is taken by the prospective patients.
The Delhi High Court, therefore granted an interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories. The Court found that the Plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case for trademark infringement of their mark “REBAHEAL”. The Court emphasized the potential for irreparable harm to the Plaintiff's goodwill and reputation if relief is not granted and found the balance of convenience in favour of Plaintiff. As a result, the Court ordered the Defendants and associated parties to cease all manufacturing, marketing, selling, and advertising of any medicinal preparations under the “REBAHEAL” mark or any deceptively similar marks.
This interim relief, pending further hearing (scheduled for November 13, 2024) highlights the judiciary's recognition of the importance of trademark protection in the pharmaceutical sector; and the need for having a 360-degree approach to prevent potential harm to business and the consumers especially in cases of alleged infringement relating to medicines and pharmaceutical products.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.