Delhi High Court Bars Intas’ ‘BEVATAS’ Mark, Cites Risk Of Confusion With Sun Pharma’s Cancer Drug ‘BEVETEX’

Delhi High Court Bars Intas’ ‘BEVATAS’ Mark, Cites Risk Of Confusion With Sun Pharma’s Cancer Drug ‘BEVETEX’

Introduction

The Delhi High Court decreed Sun Pharma’s trademark infringement suit and granted a permanent injunction restraining Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited from using the mark “BEVATAS” for its oncology drug, holding it deceptively similar to Sun Pharma’s prior registered mark “BEVETEX.” The Court emphasized that in the context of cancer drugs, where dispensing errors may have grave public health consequences, a stricter standard of comparison must be applied, and even the likelihood of confusion is sufficient to warrant injunctive relief.

Factual background

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited instituted the suit asserting rights in its registered trademark “BEVETEX,” used in relation to anti-cancer medication prescribed for cancers such as breast and lung cancer. The plaintiff emphasized that its registration and use of the mark dated back to 1983, thereby conferring prior statutory and common law rights. The grievance arose when Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited began marketing an oncology injection under the mark “BEVATAS.” According to the plaintiff, the rival mark was structurally and phonetically similar and was being used for a similar class of high-toxicity oncology drugs, thereby creating a substantial risk of confusion at the stages of prescription, dispensing, and administration. Given the nature of cancer drugs, the plaintiff argued that even minor confusion could endanger patient safety.

Procedural background

The dispute had a prolonged procedural history. The plaintiff had initially sought interim protection, which was refused by the trial court. Subsequent appellate remedies also did not yield interim relief. The suit thereafter proceeded to final adjudication before the Delhi High Court, where the matter came up before Justice Tejas Karia for final determination on the issue of infringement and permanent injunction.

Issues

1. Whether the mark “BEVATAS” is deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s prior registered mark “BEVETEX”?

2. Whether the use of similar marks for oncology drugs warrants a stricter public health-oriented standard of trademark comparison?

3. Whether the likelihood of confusion alone, without proof of actual confusion, is sufficient to decree the suit?

Contentions of the parties

The plaintiff contended that “BEVATAS” was structurally, visually, and phonetically similar to “BEVETEX”, and that the risk of confusion was particularly grave because both products were used for treatment of different kinds of cancers. It was argued that errors in oncology prescriptions or dispensing could lead to severe health consequences, making public interest a critical factor. The plaintiff further relied on its prior registration and long-standing use since 1983.

The defendant, Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited, opposed the suit by contending that both drugs were Schedule H injections administered under the supervision of specialized oncologists, thereby minimizing any practical risk of confusion. It was further argued that the mark “BEVATAS” was an honest adoption derived from the active ingredient prefix “BEVA” and the suffix “TAS”, taken from its corporate identity.

Reasoning and analysis

Justice Tejas Karia applied the anti-dissection rule, holding that the rival marks must be compared as a whole and not by separating prefixes or suffixes. On such holistic comparison, the Court found that “BEVETEX” and “BEVATAS” were structurally and phonetically similar enough to create deception in the mind of a consumer with average intelligence and imperfect recollection.

The Court gave special weight to the public health dimension. It observed that confusion between medicinal products used for different forms of cancer is even more dangerous than confusion involving drugs for the same ailment, because the consequences of a dispensing error may be catastrophic. In this context, the Court held that the law requires a strict approach while comparing pharmaceutical marks.

Rejecting the defendant’s argument that specialist supervision eliminates confusion, the Court noted that risk persists at multiple stages, including prescription writing, pharmacist dispensing, storage, purchase by attendants, and hospital administration. It further clarified that the plaintiff need not establish actual confusion; in infringement actions involving medicinal products, likelihood of confusion alone is sufficient.

The Court also rejected the honest adoption defence, holding that derivation from an active ingredient does not immunize a mark where the overall impression remains deceptively similar to a prior registered mark.

Decision

The Delhi High Court held that the use of “BEVATAS” by Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited amounted to infringement of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited’s registered mark “BEVETEX.” A permanent injunction was granted restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling, advertising, or dealing in pharmaceutical products under the mark “BEVATAS” or any deceptively similar mark. While decreeing the suit, the Court recorded that the plaintiff waived claims for damages and rendition of accounts, stating that the action had been pursued in public interest and patient safety.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Advocates Sachin Gupta, Mahima Chanchalani, Prashansa, Rohit Pradhan, Diksha, Ajay & Aadarsh. Meanwhile the defendant was represented by Advocates Bitika Sharma, George Vithayathil, Ahaana Singh Rana & Aditya P. Mishra.