Back
Cancels Razenta's 'DAPLOGIN' Trademark as to Dr. Reddy's 'DAPLO'
A crucial ruling by the has underscored the heightened protection afforded to pharmaceutical trademarks, cancelling ' registration for 'DAPLOGIN' due to its deceptive similarity to ' earlier mark 'DAPLO'.
Justice Jyoti Singh, presiding over the matter, held that the impugned mark was visually and phonetically indistinguishable from the petitioner's well-known trademark, posing a serious risk of confusion in the market for Type-2 Diabetes medication.
Abbott of Hyderabad vs. Indore Despite
The case originated from , a pharmaceutical giant established in 1984. The company had been using the coined trademark 'DAPLO' for its diabetes drug since 2020, securing valid registration in India and several other countries. In contrast, Razenta filed for 'DAPLOGIN' on a 'proposed to be used' basis on , obtaining registration after the mark was published in the Trade Marks Journal in . Dr. Reddy's, claiming it had missed the publication due to an oversight, discovered the competing mark in when it appeared on . Within weeks, it filed a cancellation petition under .
A Case of Subsuming Similarity
Dr. Reddy's argued that 'DAPLOGIN' wholly subsumed 'DAPLO'—the petitioner's mark comprised the first five letters of the respondent's mark, with only the suffix 'GIN' added. Given that both products used the same active pharmaceutical ingredient (API), Dapagliflozin, and were intended for the same ailment, the likelihood of confusion among patients and physicians was inevitable. The petitioner emphasized that the 's landmark ruling in demands a stricter approach for pharmaceutical marks to prevent potentially life-threatening errors.
Conversely, Razenta contended that its adoption was honest and , following industry practice of deriving brand names from the API. The company argued that 'DAP' and 'LOZIN' were taken from Dapagliflozin, with a minor letter substitution ('Z' to 'G'), making 'DAPLOGIN' sufficiently unique. It further pointed to several other registered marks containing 'DAPLO' to argue the prefix was .
The Court's Scrutiny: Anti-Dissection and Public Interest
Justice Singh rejected the '
' defence, noting that Razenta had failed to provide evidence of actual market use for the four cited third-party marks.
"
is qualitatively different from common to the trade,"
the court observed, relying on the principle from
and
.
Applying the classic , the court compared the marks as a whole, as required by the in . It found that an average purchaser with would focus on similarities, not minor differences. The addition of 'GIN' was deemed insufficient to diminish the dominance of 'DAPLO'. The court further relied on the Division Bench judgment in , which reaffirmed that "" is required for medicinal products.
The court also dismissed the argument that prescription-only dispensation negates confusion, citing
Cadila Health
:
"Physicians are not immune from confusion or mistake... where the trade marks are
."
"Utmost Care to Prevent Confusion"
In a key observation, the court noted:
"This Court is of the opinion that the mark DAPLOGIN is
to the mark DAPLO, which is an earlier registered trademark and the rival products under the two marks are identical with same API and are for treating Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus. The fact that both are prescription drug, as held consistently, is not enough to dispel the likelihood of confusion..."
It further stated: "The has held in Cadila Health (supra) , in trademark disputes relating to pharmaceutical products, it is the primary duty of the Courts to take utmost care to prevent any possibility of confusion inasmuch as confusion in non-medicinal products may at best cause economic loss but confusion in the pharmaceutical industry may have disastrous effects on the health of the patients."
Cancellation and Rectification Ordered
Allowing the petition, Justice Singh issued a clear directive: the registration of 'DAPLOGIN' (No.5208898) in Class 05 is cancelled. The has been ordered to rectify the Register within six weeks from the date of the decision. This ruling reinforces the principle that senior users of distinctive pharmaceutical marks are entitled to robust protection, and that —even of a mark derived from a common API—cannot be sustained if it leads to deceptive similarity.
The judgment serves as a strong reminder to the pharmaceutical industry that the test of confusing similarity requires a stringent approach, prioritising public health over commercial convenience.
