Delhi High Court Injuncts ‘HALESAGA’, Finds Prima Facie Triple Identity with Saga Lifesciences’ ‘SAGA’ Mark

Delhi High Court Injuncts ‘HALESAGA’, Finds Prima Facie Triple Identity with Saga Lifesciences’ ‘SAGA’ Mark

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction in favour of Saga Lifesciences Limited, restraining Anaadi Global from using the mark “HALESAGA” or any deceptively similar mark for pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations. The Court held that the impugned mark incorporates the plaintiff’s “SAGA” mark in its entirety, and the mere addition of a prefix or stylistic device is insufficient to avoid deception.

Factual Background

The suit was filed by Saga Lifesciences Limited, proprietor of the registered “SAGA” trademark, claiming continuous use since 1981 in relation to pharmaceutical and medicinal products. The plaintiff alleged that Anaadi Global had adopted the mark “HALESAGA”, which reproduces the plaintiff’s mark in full and merely prefixes it with the word “HALE”. The plaintiff contended that the use was likely to cause confusion in the pharmaceutical market where identical goods are sold through identical trade channels.

It was also submitted that the plaintiff’s export business constitutes valid use of the mark in India under Section 56 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Procedural Background

The matter came up before Justice Tejas Karia on the plaintiff’s application seeking interim injunction for trademark infringement and passing off. The Court was required to examine whether the rival mark was prima facie deceptively similar and whether interim restraint was warranted during the pendency of the suit.

Issues

1. Whether the mark “HALESAGA” is prima facie deceptively similar to the registered mark “SAGA”.

2. Whether the addition of the prefix “HALE” and logo elements sufficiently distinguishes the impugned mark.

3. Whether the case satisfied the test of triple identity in trademark infringement.

Contentions of Parties

The plaintiff, Saga Lifesciences Limited, contended that the defendant had copied its registered mark “SAGA” in its entirety, and that the addition of “HALE” was cosmetic and incapable of neutralizing the deceptive similarity.

It was argued that the marks, the goods, the trade channels, and the consumer base were all identical, thereby creating a strong likelihood of confusion.

The defendant, Anaadi Global, argued that “HALESAGA” was honestly conceived to signify the idea that good health is a long-term journey, and that the word “SAGA”, being a common English dictionary term meaning a long story, cannot be monopolized.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Court rejected the defendant’s attempt to rely on the dictionary meaning of “SAGA.” Justice Karia held that while “SAGA” may be a common English word, it is arbitrary when used in relation to pharmaceutical goods, and therefore fully capable of trademark protection.

On visual and structural comparison, the Court found that the defendant’s mark prominently highlights the plaintiff’s mark, especially because the words “HALE” and “SAGA” are separated by an apostrophe, which visually emphasizes the “SAGA” component. The Bench held that mere addition of a prefix and logo is insufficient to distinguish the goods, especially where the dominant and essential feature of the plaintiff’s mark is retained intact. A key factor in the Court’s reasoning was the existence of triple identity:

• deceptively similar marks,
• identical pharmaceutical products,
• identical trade channels and consumer base.

The Court found that such overlap creates a substantial likelihood of confusion and appears to be an attempt by the defendant to ride upon the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff. It also noted that continued use of the impugned mark could cause loss of revenue, dilution of goodwill, and reputational harm, particularly serious in the pharmaceutical sector where confusion can have grave consequences.

Decision

The Delhi High Court held that Saga Lifesciences Limited had established a strong prima facie case of infringement and passing off. Accordingly, the Court restrained Anaadi Global from manufacturing, selling, advertising, or dealing in pharmaceutical and medicinal products under the mark “HALESAGA” or any deceptively similar mark during the pendency of the suit.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Advocates Vikas Khera, Sneha Sethia and Yash Sharma. Meanwhile the defendant was represented by Advocates Anshuman Upadhyay, Naseen and Rahul Singh.