Sanitary Napkins And Medicines Not Allied Or Cognate Goods: Delhi High Court Rejects Plea Alleging Deceptively Similar Trademark

Rejecting the appeal against denial of interim injunction by a single judge, the division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur observed,

“there is no dispute that the appellant is using its Subject Mark for goods like sanitary napkins, sanitary towels, pads etc., while the respondents are using their Impugned Mark for medicine claimed to be giving relief against constipation. The two goods are neither allied nor cognate…the nature of goods, their trade channel, their purpose, and the intended consumers are distinct, and there is no likelihood of confusion being caused by the use of the marks for such goods.”

RSPL sought to restrain Sun Pharma from dealing in or using the trademark 'PRUEASE' on the ground that it is deceptively similar to its trademark 'PRO-EASE'.

While Sun Pharma claimed that it independently coined and adopted the impugned mark in relation to medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations, RSPL asserted that Sun Pharma had dishonestly adopted the impugned Trademark, which is identical/deceptively similar, to cause confusion and deception in the normal course of business activities.

The High Court referred to Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Coop. Milk Producers Federation Ltd., (2018) where the Supreme Court had held that if a trader actually trades in only one or some of the articles coming under a broad classification and such trader has no bona fide intention to trade in other goods or articles which also fall under the said broad classification, such trader should not be permitted to enjoy monopoly in respect of all the articles which may come under such broad classification.

Thus, in the case at hand, the High Court held, “the goods are distinct, having distinct and separate trade channels, and there is no likelihood of confusion being caused to the public by the use of the marks. There is also no case of passing off made out by the appellant as the packaging of the products and the manner of the depiction of the mark along with other additional ingredients of the label do not indicate any likelihood of confusion resulting in the use of the same.”

The Court also noted that Sun Pharma had clearly stated that it did not intend to venture out to other products like sanitary napkins, etc. using the impugned mark.

As such, appeal was dismissed.

Appearance: Mr.Raj Shekhar Rao, Sr. Adv. & Ms.Swathi Sukumar, Sr. Adv. with Mr.S.K. Bansal, Mr.Rishi Bansal, Mr.Rishabh Gupta & Ms.Ayushi Arora, Advs. for Appellant; Mr.Amit Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Sachin Gupta, Mr.Rohit Pradhan, Mr.Tanmay Sharma, Ms.Prashansa Singh, Mr.Saksham Dhingra, Mr.Ankur Vyas & Mr.Ankit, Advs. for Respondents

Case title: RSPL Health Pvt. Ltd. v. Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited & Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 676

Case no.: FAO (COMM) 65/2025

Click here to read judgment