* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 28.03.2026 + CS(COMM) 39/2023 SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LIMITED .....Plaintiff versus INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED .....Defendant Advocates who appeared in this case For the Plaintiff : Mr. Sachin Gupta, Ms. Mahima Chanchalani, Ms. Prashansa, Mr. Rohit Pradhan, Ms. Diksha, Mr. Ajay & Mr.

Aadarsh, Advocates.

For the Defendant : Ms. Bitika Sharma, Mr. George Vithayathil, Ms. Ahaana Singh Rana & Mr. Aditya P.

Mishra, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

JUDGMENT

TEJAS KARIA, J

1. The present Suit has been filed seeking a permanent injunction against infringement of the Trade Mark ‘BEVETEX’ (“Plaintiff’s Mark”), passing off, unfair competition, dilution, rendition of accounts and damages.

2. The drug under the Plaintiff’s Mark (“Plaintiff’s Drug”) is a scheduled drug used for treatment of breast cancer, non-small cell lung cancer and pancreatic cancer. The Defendant is using the Mark ‘BEVATAS’

(“Impugned Mark”) for manufacturing and selling drugs for treatment of colorectal cancer, ovarian cancer, cervical cancer, lung cancer and recurrent glioblastoma (“Defendant’s Drug”).

PROCEDURALHISTORY:

3. The present Suit was listed before the Court of the District Judge, Saket Courts, Delhi (“Trial Court”) on 02.01.2018, wherein the learned Trial Court refused to grant an ex-parte ad-interim injunction on the ground that the Defendant’s Drug is a cancer drug and it would not be in the interest of the public to grant an injunction against the Defendant’s Drug without granting the Defendant an opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, the Defendant was granted a period of one week to file its reply to the Application filed by the Plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”).

4. After completion of arguments with respect to the Application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, the learned Trial Court vide Order dated 17.09.2018, dismissed the Application of the Plaintiff for grant of interim injunction on the ground that the Plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case for grant of an interim injunction.

5. On 17.12.2018, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is registered owner of the Trademark ‘BEVETEX’ in relation to medical and pharmaceutical preparations?

OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is the prior and continuous user of the trade mark ‘BEVETEX’ in comparison to the defendant’s use of the mark ‘BEVATAS’ in relation to medical and pharmaceutical preparations? OPP

3. Whether the use of the impugned mark ‘BEVATAS’ by the defendant in respect to medical and pharmaceutical preparations amounts to infringement of plaintiffs registered trade mark ‘BEVETEX’? OPP

4. Whether there is any similarity or likelihood of confusion/deception between the marks ‘BEVETEX’ and ‘BEVATAS’? OPParties

5. Whether the plaintiff is guilty of hoarding its mark ‘BEVETEX’? OPD

6. Whether the present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff without any authorization? OPD

7. Whether the present suit suffers from delay, laches and acquiescence? OPD

8. Whether the plaintiff has failed to disclose any cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

9. Whether the defendant is the proprietor of the trade mark ‘BEVATAS’? OPD

10. Whether the defendant is the honest adopter and prior user of the mark ‘BEVATAS’? OPD

11. Relief.

6. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Application for interim injunction against the use of the Impugned Mark by the learned Trial Court, the Plaintiff filed an appeal before this Court bearing No. FAO 447 of 2018 (“Appeal”). The Appeal filed by the Plaintiff came to be dismissed vide order dated 09.01.2020. The Plaintiff preferred Special Leave Petition No. 3385 of 2020 (“SLP”) against the order of dismissal of the Appeal. The SLP filed by the Plaintiff was also dismissed vide order dated 14.02.2020 with the direction that the learned Trial Court shall decide the Suit being uninfluenced by any observation by t