Bombay High Court Permanently Injuncts ‘ZEKODOL-P’, Awards ₹15 Lakh Costs To IPCA In ‘ZERODOL’ Trademark Dispute

Bombay High Court Permanently Injuncts ‘ZEKODOL-P’, Awards ₹15 Lakh Costs To IPCA In ‘ZERODOL’ Trademark Dispute

Introduction

The Bombay High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favour of IPCA Laboratories Limited, restraining Rikon Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd from using the mark “ZEKODOL-P”, holding that it infringes IPCA’s registered trademark “ZERODOL” and amounts to passing off.

Justice Arif S. Doctor, by judgment dated February 23, 2026, also imposed costs of ₹15 lakh on the defendant.

Factual Background

IPCA Laboratories Limited submitted that it coined and adopted the trademark “ZERODOL” in or about September 1992 in respect of medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations, and that the mark has been in use since 2003. The company markets multiple pharmaceutical formulations incorporating “ZERODOL” as an essential feature, including ZERODOL-P, ZERODOL-PT, ZERODOL-S, ZERODOL-MR and ZERODOL-TH.

The defendant adopted and used the mark “ZEKODOL-P” for pain relievers and pharmaceutical preparations, which are identical to the goods covered by the plaintiff’s registrations.

Procedural Background

IPCA instituted a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction, damages and other reliefs for trademark infringement and passing off. Despite service of the Writ of Summons, the defendant failed to enter appearance. Consequently, the plaintiff’s evidence remained uncontroverted and unrebutted.

Issues

1. Whether “ZEKODOL-P” is deceptively similar to “ZERODOL”.

2. Whether use of the impugned mark constitutes infringement and passing off.

3. Whether damages and/or costs ought to be awarded.

Contentions of the Parties

The plaintiff contended that “ZERODOL” is a coined and distinctive mark that has acquired substantial goodwill through long and continuous use. It argued that the defendant’s mark “ZEKODOL-P” is phonetically, visually and structurally almost identical to its registered mark and is used in respect of identical goods. It was submitted that in the pharmaceutical sector, even a remote possibility of confusion warrants injunction due to public health considerations. The plaintiff also sought punitive damages of ₹5 lakh.

The defendant did not appear to contest the proceedings, and therefore no defence was placed on record.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Court held that the impugned mark is “phonetically, visually and structurally almost identical” to the plaintiff’s mark. It observed that the essential and dominant feature of both marks is the suffix “DOL”, and that there is very little distinction between the prefixes “ZEKO” and “ZERO”. The Court found that the overall commercial impression created by the rival marks is strikingly similar and that they are virtually identical in visual, structural and phonetic composition.

Given that both marks are used in relation to identical goods, namely pain relievers and pharmaceutical preparations, the Court concluded that the likelihood of confusion is not merely probable but imminent.

Justice Doctor emphasised the heightened standard applicable to medicinal products, observing that even a remote possibility of confusion must be treated with caution due to its direct impact on public health. The Court further noted that the defendant’s adoption was dishonest, particularly in light of the absence of any rebuttal.

On the issue of damages, the Court declined to grant monetary compensation as the plaintiff had not produced evidence of actual loss or quantifiable harm. However, invoking Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to costs in view of its established rights and the defendant’s dishonest conduct.

Decision

The suit was decreed in favour of IPCA Laboratories Limited. The defendant was permanently restrained from using the mark “ZEKODOL-P” or any deceptively similar mark amounting to infringement and passing off. While damages were declined, the Court awarded costs of ₹15 lakh in favour of the plaintiff, payable within eight weeks.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Advocates Minesh Andharia and Jay Shah i/b Krishna & Saurastri Associates LLP.