Delhi High Court Protects COBADEX Trademark: Interim Injunction Against COBADRIX

Delhi High Court Protects COBADEX Trademark: Interim Injunction Against COBADRIX

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction in favor of Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd., restraining Innovexia Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. and others from using the deceptively similar mark “COBADRIX” for pharmaceutical products. The court emphasized the importance of protecting intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical sector, where even minor confusion can have serious consequences for patient safety.

Factual Background

The plaintiff, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd., is the registered proprietor of the trademark “COBADEX”, in use since 1974 for pharmaceutical formulations treating vitamin and mineral deficiencies. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants adopted the mark “COBADRIX” for similar products, thereby infringing and passing off upon its established goodwill and reputation.

Procedural Background

The plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain infringement, passing off, and allied reliefs. The court issued summons to the defendants and directed them to file a written statement within four weeks of service. The plaintiff also sought exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, which the court granted.

Issues

1. Whether the defendants’ use of “COBADRIX” amounts to trademark infringement and passing off against “COBADEX”?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interim relief restraining use of the impugned mark?

Contentions of the Parties

• Plaintiff’s Contention: The plaintiff argued that “COBADRIX” is deceptively similar to “COBADEX”, creating a high likelihood of confusion among consumers. It further contended that the defendants’ conduct was a deliberate and mala fide attempt to ride upon the goodwill of a well-established pharmaceutical brand.
• Defendant’s Contention: The defendants did not appear or contest the proceedings.

Reasoning and Analysis

Justice Tejas Karia held that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for injunction. The court noted that the phonetic and visual similarity between “COBADEX” and “COBADRIX” was undeniable and capable of misleading an average consumer of imperfect recollection. The court further observed that the balance of convenience lay in favor of the plaintiff and that irreparable harm would be caused if the defendants were permitted to continue using the impugned mark.

Outcome

The court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, advertising, or dealing in pharmaceutical products under the mark “COBADRIX”. This ruling reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to protecting distinctive pharmaceutical trademarks and preventing consumer confusion in a sensitive market space.

Representation

• For the Plaintiff: Ms. Shwetasree Majumder, Mr. Vardaan Anand & Ms. Ruchika Yadav, Advocates.
• For the Defendants: None appeared.