* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 28/02/2026 + CS(COMM) 896/2025 GLAXOSMITHKLINE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. .....Plaintiff versus ZEE LABORATORIES LIMITED. ....Defendant Advocates who appeared in this case For the Plaintiff : Ms. Tanya Varma, Mr. Vardaan Anand, Ms.

Ruchika Yadav and Ms. Hansika Bajaj, Advocates.

For the Defendant : Mr. Rohit Bohra and Mr. Siddharth Bambha, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

JUDGMENT

TEJAS KARIA, J I.A. No. 20991/2025

1. This is an Application filed by the Plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) restraining infringement of the Trade Mark, ‘PHEXIN’ (“Plaintiff’s Mark”), passing off, unfair competition, dilution etc.

2. The Defendant is using the Marks, ‘FEXIN’, ‘FEXIN-F’, ‘FEXIT’, ‘FEXIT-B’ and ‘FEXIT-M’ for sale of pharmaceutical ointments.

3. On 03.09.2025, the learned Counsel for the Defendant, on instructions, furnished an oral statement before this Court that the Defendant will discontinue the use of the Mark ‘FEXIN’ forthwith. The statement of the Defendant was taken on record and the Defendant was made bound to the statement.

4. The Defendant was, however, opposed the injunction against the use of the Marks, ‘FEXIT’, ‘FEXIT-B’ and ‘FEXIT-M’ (“Impugned Marks”) and, accordingly, the Parties have been heard with respect to grant of interim injunction against the use of the Impugned Marks by the Defendant.

SUBMISSIONSONBEHALFOFTHEPLAINTIFF:

5. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff made the following submissions: 5.1. The Plaintiff is a member of the GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) group of companies, of which GSK Pharmaceuticals Limited is the parent company. GSK is a science-led global healthcare company based in the United Kingdom. GSK has had a presence in India dating back over 100 years since the incorporation of the Plaintiff in 1924. The Plaintiff’s Mark has been in use in India since 1985 and has also received Trade Mark registration, the details of which are as under:

TradeMark Registration Dateof Class No. Registration PHEXIN 418731 7^th March1984 05

5.2. The Plaintiff manufactures and markets extended-release antibiotic tablets for treatment of respiratory tract infections, urinary tract infections, skin and soft tissue infections, otitis media and other infections due to bacteria under the Plaintiff’s Mark (“Plaintiff’s Product”). The Plaintiff has also adopted distinctive outer packaging,

‘ ’ (“Plaintiff’s Trade Dress”) for the product under the Plaintiff’s Mark, which consists of a white and

green colour combination.

5.3. The Plaintiff has advertised and promoted the Plaintiff’s product under the Plaintiff’s Mark in India over the years. The consolidated advertising and promotional expenditure incurred annually by the Plaintiff for the products under the Plaintiff’s Mark are as under:

5.4. The Defendant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act.

The Defendant is the marketer and manufacturer of pharmaceutical ointments under the Impugned Marks (“Defendant’s Products”). The Defendant has also adopted a Trade Dress with green and white

packaging, ‘ ’ (“Impugned Trade Dress”), which is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s Trade Dress. The visual comparison of the Plaintiff’s Trade Dress and the

Impugned Trade Dress is as under.

5.5. The Plaintiff sent a Cease-and-Desist notice dated 22.04.2025 (“Cease and Desist Notice”) to the Defendant directing the Defendant to cease and desist the use of the Impugned Marks and the Impugned Trade Dress. The Defendant did not respond to the Cease and Desist Notice and chose to ignore the same. Thereafter, the Plaintiff also addressed a follow up letter dated 02.05.2025 to the Defendant, which also went unaddressed by the Defendant. Thereafter, in July 2025, the Plaintiff proceeded to conduct a market check in the region of Delhi and came across the Defendant’s Products.

5.6. The Supreme Court in Cadilla Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadilla Pharmaceuticals Ltd, (2001) 5 SCC 73 and this Court