Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 11168
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tushar Rao Gedela, J
THE HONEST REVEIRA AND ANR VS. MOHAMAD UMAR & ORS
CS(COMM) 453/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Tanya Varma, Mr. Vardaan Anand, Ms. Ruchika Yadav, Ms. Hansika Bajaj
For the Respondents:
In pharmaceutical trademark disputes, a higher degree of vigilance and a stricter standard for deceptive similarity are required because confusion between medicinal products can result in physical harm or death, justifying a lower threshold of proof for granting injunctions.
Headnote:(A) Trademark Infringement - Deceptive Similarity - Pharmaceutical Products - A stricter standard of similarity is applied to medicinal products because confusion can lead to life-threatening consequences, requiring a lesser quantum of proof to establish confusing similarity. (Para 27, 29, 32)
(B) Balance of Convenience - Prima Facie Case - Where a registered trademark (GSK) has been used since 2000 and a deceptively similar mark (GHK) is adopted later (2020) for identical goods in the same class, the balance of convenience tilts in favor of the prior registered user. (Para 28, 31)
Issues: Whether the mark 'GHK' is deceptively similar to the registered trademark 'GSK' such that it warrants an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in the context of pharmaceutical preparations.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. disposal of interlocutory applications regarding additional documents, mediation exemption, and filing exemptions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. plaintiff's claim of trademark ownership and allegations of deceptive similarity by the defendant's use of 'ghk'. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 3. analysis of visual and conceptual similarity between 'gsk' and 'ghk' in the pharmaceutical sector. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 4. application of the stricter standard of confusing similarity for medicinal products to prevent public harm. (Para 29) |
| 5. determination of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss based on goodwill and registration. (Para 30 , 31) |
| 6. granting of ex-parte ad-interim injunction and directions for suit registration and pleadings. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
O R D E R
I.A. 11826/2026 (Additional Documents)
1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XI Rule 1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as‘CPC’) as applicable to commercial suits under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CC Act’) seeking leave to place on record additional documents.
2. The plaintiff is permitted to file additional documents in accordance with the provisions of the CC Act and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
3. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
I.A. 11825/2026 (Exemption from pre-litigation mediation)
4. This is an application filed by the plaintiff seeking exemption from instituting pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the CC Act.
5. As the present matter contemplates urgent interim relief, in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar vs. T.K.D. Keerthi : (2024) 5 SCC 815, exemption from the requirement of pre-institution mediation is granted.
6. The application stands disposed of.
I.A. 11827/2026 (Exemption from filing clearer, translation and unredacted copies)
7. This is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Section 151 of CPC seeking exemption from filing clearer, translation and unredacted copies along with the captioned suit.
8. Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. However, true typed/translated/clear/unredacted copies of the documents with proper margins be filed within four weeks with an advance copy to the defendant.
9. The application stands disposed of.
I.A. 11824/2026 (U/o XXXIX Rules 1 and 2)
10. Present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC, 1908 seeking ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendant.
11. The plaintiff-SmithKline Beecham Limited is a U.K. based company which is a prominent member of the G.S.K. Group of companies. GSK plc is stated to be the ultimate parent company of the G.S.K. Group, and the parent company of the plaintiff. GSK is a science-led global healthcare company with turnover in the years 2023, 2024 and 2025 of £30.3 billion, £31.4 billion and £32.7 billion respectively, worldwide. In 2025, GSK is stated to have achieved £13.5 billion and £10.0 billion in global turnover for its specialty medicine products and general medicine respectively. GSK is one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world with more than 2 billion medicine and vaccine doses supplied in 2025. As of the end of 2025, the company employs over 66,000 employees across the world and has always laid strong emphasis on research and development to be able to produce many of the best-selling pharmaceutical and consumer healthcare products of the world. GSK’s vaccine products achieved approx. £9.2 billion global turnover in 2025.
12. Established in the year 2000 following the merger of Glaxo Welcome plc and plaintiff, GSK claims to have a rich legacy dating back to the year 1715. GSK’s global presence extends to more than 150 cou
