Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Bombay High Court: In a suit seeking reliefs for infringement of trade mark coupled with passing off for mark ‘CEDON,’ a Single-Judge bench of Arif S. Doctor, J., permanently restrained the defendants from infringing the plaintiff’s registered trade mark “CEDON” and from using the mark “CEFDON” or any other deceptively similar mark in relation to medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations. The Court further directed each defendant to pay ₹5 lakhs as costs to the plaintiff within eight weeks, failing which the amount would carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum.
In the instant matter, the plaintiff instituted the present suit seeking reliefs for infringement of trade mark coupled with passing off.
The plaintiff is a pharmaceutical company and the registered proprietor of the trade mark “CEDON.” The plaintiff’s case is that it coined and adopted the mark “CEDON” in the year 2004 and has, since then, continuously and extensively used the said mark in relation to its dry cough syrup across India. By reason of long, uninterrupted, and exclusive use, the mark “CEDON” had acquired distinctiveness and had become exclusively associated with the plaintiff’s medicinal preparations.
In August 2014, the plaintiff discovered that Defendant 1 was using the mark “CEFDON” in respect of an antibacterial dry syrup used for treating cough. A cease and desist notice dated 18-08-2014 was issued, asserting that the impugned mark was almost identical and confusingly similar to the plaintiff’s registered trade mark. While the manufacturer agreed to discontinue manufacture, Defendant 1 persisted in using the impugned mark.
Subsequently, on 18-11-2014, the plaintiff came across the impugned product bearing the mark “CEFDON” being sold in the market at Warangal, Telangana. Upon inspection, it was found that the product was being manufactured by Defendant 2 and was in respect of identical goods.
Despite service of writ of summons, the defendants failed to file a written statement. The suit was therefore transferred to the list of undefended suits. An earlier order dated 27-01-2015 granting ad interim relief in favour of the plaintiff had attained finality.
The Court, after considering the pleadings, evidence, and submissions, held that the plaintiff had clearly established its statutory and common law rights in the trade mark “CEDON”. The Court noted that the plaintiff was the prior user of the mark and that the evidence demonstrated continuous, extensive, and exclusive use over several years.
The Court observed that there could be no manner of doubt that the plaintiff’s registered trade mark “CEDON” had been entirely subsumed in the impugned mark “CEFDON”. The Court held there was both visual and phonetic similarity between the two marks and that they were deceptively similar, giving rise to a clear likelihood of confusion and deception.
Given that the goods in question were pharmaceutical preparations, the Court emphasised that a stricter approach was warranted, as confusion in medicinal products could have serious consequences. The Court held that the defendants’ failure to contest the proceedings, despite service, further credence to the plaintiff’s case that the adoption of the impugned mark was dishonest and actuated by bad faith.
The Court decreed in favour of the plaintiff and permanently restrained the defendants from infringing the plaintiff’s registered trade mark “CEDON” and from using the impugned mark “CEFDON” in relation to their pharmaceutical products.
Invoking Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), the Court awarded compensatory costs of Rs. 5 lakhs each against the defendants, payable within eight weeks, failing which the amount would carry interest at 8% per annum.
[Blue Cross Laboratories (P) Ltd. v. RB Remedies (P) Ltd., Commercial IP Suit No. 231 of 2015, Decided on 16-12-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Vinod Bhagat a/w Ms. Twisha Singh i/b Mr. Vinod A. Bhagat, Counsel for the Plaintiff