Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Injunction Against Indore Trader for Using Glaxo-Like Packaging on Medicines

Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Injunction Against Indore Trader for Using Glaxo-Like Packaging on Medicines

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Glaxo Group Limited restraining an Indore-based trader from using trademarks and packaging deceptively similar to its well-known pharmaceutical brands. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that a prima facie case of trademark infringement and breach of an earlier undertaking had been established against Anand Jain, trading as Jain Group/Jankem Life Science. The Court found that continued use of similar marks and packaging for medicinal products was likely to cause confusion among consumers.

Factual Background

Glaxo Group Limited alleged that Anand Jain, operating under the names Jain Group and Jankem Life Science, had been manufacturing and selling pharmaceutical products bearing marks and packaging deceptively similar to its well-known medicinal brands such as ZINETAC, AUGMENTIN, CALPOL and BETNESOL. The plaintiff claimed that it discovered the alleged infringement in September 2023 when products bearing similar marks and trade dress were found being sold through both offline distribution channels and online marketplaces.

Glaxo further asserted that it has been present in India since 1919 and holds registered trademarks for several pharmaceutical products, including ZINETAC. It also contended that the distinctive packaging and trade dress of its products had acquired significant goodwill and recognition in the market.

Procedural Background

Following discovery of the alleged infringement, the plaintiff issued a cease-and-desist notice to the defendant in November 2023. Subsequently, the defendant executed an undertaking dated July 31, 2024, agreeing to cease use of the impugned marks and packaging by August 31, 2024, destroy remaining infringing inventory, and remove online listings relating to such products. However, according to the plaintiff, a subsequent investigation in 2025 revealed that the defendant had failed to comply with the undertaking and had continued to sell products with similar packaging and marks. The plaintiff therefore approached the Delhi High Court seeking injunctive relief against the defendant.

Issues

1. Whether the defendant’s use of similar trademarks and packaging amounted to infringement of the plaintiff’s registered trademarks.

2. Whether the defendant had breached the undertaking previously given to cease use of the impugned marks and packaging.

3. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using deceptively similar marks and trade dress.

Contentions of the Parties

The plaintiff contended that the defendant had deliberately adopted marks and packaging similar to its established medicinal brands to exploit their goodwill and reputation. It further alleged that despite undertaking in 2024 to stop using the infringing marks and destroy remaining inventory, the defendant continued to sell products under marks such as BETAJAN, BETAJOX, JANTAC and MOXYCROT with packaging allegedly similar to that of the plaintiff’s products.

The plaintiff also asserted that the similarity in packaging and trade dress was particularly dangerous in the pharmaceutical sector because the products were sold to the same class of consumers and could lead to confusion affecting public health.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Court examined the comparative material placed on record and observed that both parties were engaged in the manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical preparations falling within the same class of goods and marketed to the same consumer base. Justice Gedela noted that the comparison table presented by the plaintiff demonstrated that an unwary consumer could easily be misled due to similarities in packaging and trade dress.

The Court also took note of the defendant’s earlier undertaking to discontinue the use of the impugned marks and packaging. The continued sale of allegedly infringing products despite this undertaking strengthened the plaintiff’s claim of deliberate infringement.

Considering the nature of pharmaceutical goods and the potential consequences of consumer confusion in the healthcare sector, the Court held that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case. The Court further observed that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the plaintiff and that refusal to grant immediate relief could result in irreparable harm that could not be adequately compensated by monetary damages.

Decision

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant and all persons acting on its behalf from manufacturing, selling, advertising or dealing in pharmaceutical products under the marks JANTAC, MOXYCROT, BETAJAN, BETAJOX, ZIVHIT, RANIJOX and PARAJAN, or any other marks or packaging deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trademarks. The Court directed the defendant to file its written statement along with an affidavit of admission and denial of documents within thirty days of service of summons. The matter has been listed for further proceedings before the Joint Registrar on May 14, 2026 and before the Court on September 3, 2026.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Advocates Urfee Roomi, Janaki Arun, Ritesh Kumar, Aneja Chaudhury and Angela Arora.