Bombay High Court Imposes Permanent Ban in ‘CEDON–CEFDON’ Trademark Dispute

Bombay High Court Imposes Permanent Ban in ‘CEDON–CEFDON’ Trademark Dispute

Introduction

The Bombay High Court has permanently restrained an Ahmedabad-based drug manufacturer from selling cough syrup under the mark “CEFDON.” The Court held that the mark was deceptively similar to the well-established brand “CEDON,” and that its use posed a real risk of consumer confusion.

Factual Background

The plaintiff, Blue Cross Laboratories Private Limited, stated that it has been marketing its dry cough syrup under the trademark “CEDON” since 2004, with the trademark itself having been registered as early as 1996. Over the years, the company claimed to have built substantial goodwill and reputation in the market.

In August 2014, Blue Cross discovered that RB Remedies Private Limited had introduced a cough syrup under the name “CEFDON.” Despite issuance of a cease-and-desist notice, the defendant allegedly continued to market and sell the product. To substantiate its claims, Blue Cross placed on record invoices, turnover figures and Chartered Accountant certificates evidencing long, continuous and extensive use of the “CEDON” mark.

Procedural Background

Blue Cross Laboratories instituted a commercial intellectual property suit before the Bombay High Court seeking permanent injunction, passing off reliefs and costs. The matter was heard by Justice Arif S. Doctor, who delivered judgment on December 16, 2025.

Issues

1. Whether the mark “CEFDON” was deceptively similar to the registered trademark “CEDON.”

2. Whether the defendant’s use amounted to trademark infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

3. Whether the continued sale of the product constituted passing off.

4. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to costs.

Contentions of the Parties

Plaintiff: The plaintiff argued that “CEDON” is a well-known cough syrup brand with decades of market presence. It contended that “CEFDON” wholly incorporated the registered mark and differed only by the addition of a single consonant, making it visually and phonetically deceptive. Given that both products were cough syrups, the likelihood of confusion was said to be particularly dangerous from a public health perspective.

Defendants: The defendants did not effectively contest the proceedings or place any material on record to justify adoption of the impugned mark or establish honest and bona fide use.

Reasoning and Analysis

Justice Arif S. Doctor applied the settled test of comparison from the standpoint of an average consumer with imperfect recollection, particularly relevant in pharmaceutical cases. The Court found that the registered mark “CEDON” was entirely subsumed within “CEFDON,” rendering the two marks visually and phonetically similar.

The Court noted that both products were cough syrups catering to the same consumer base, heightening the risk of confusion and deception. It accepted the plaintiff’s evidence of long-standing goodwill and observed that there was no explanation on record suggesting that adoption of “CEFDON” was honest or accidental.

The Court also emphasised that in cases involving medicinal products, even a likelihood of confusion is unacceptable, as it may directly impact consumer health. The defendant’s failure to contest the suit further weighed against it.

Decision

The Bombay High Court permanently restrained RB Remedies Private Limited from manufacturing, selling or marketing cough syrup under the “CEFDON” mark or any other deceptively similar mark. It also held the defendants liable for passing off and imposed costs of ₹5 lakh each on the company and the manufacturer, noting that the plaintiff was compelled to incur unnecessary legal expenses due to the defendants’ conduct.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Vinod Bhagat a/w Ms. Twisha Singh i/b Mr. Vinod A. Bhagat, Advocates.