Delhi District Court
Morepen Laboratories Limited vs Nippon Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd on 14 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF PULASTYA PRAMACHALA,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT-01),
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
INDEX
Sl. HEADINGS Page Nos.
No.
1 Memo of Parties 2
2 Description of Case 3
3 Brief Factsof the case 3-6
4 Plea of defendants 6-8
5. Issues 9
6 Plaintiff's Evidence 9-11
7 Defendant's Evidence 11&12
8 Issues No. 1 &2 13-20
9 Issues No.5&6 20-23
10 Issue no. 3 & 4 23-24
11 Relief 24-25
Digitally signed
by PULASTYA
PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
PRAMACHALA Date:
2026.03.14
16:02:22 +0530
CS(COMM.) 772/2022 Page no.1 of 25
CS(COMM.) 772/2022
In the matter of:
Morepen Laboratories Limited
4th Floor, Antriksh Bhawan,
22 K.G Marg, New Delhi-11001
...Plaintiff
Versus
1. Nippon Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
E-704, Titanium City Center,
100 Ft. Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015
Also at:
Quarter No. 2, Residency Road,
C-Scheme Jaipur, Rajasthan-302001
2. Ms. Mridula Gupta
Quarter No. 2, Residency Road,
C-Scheme Jaipur, Rajasthan-302001
3. Ms. Damini Gupta
Quarter No. 2, Residency Road,
C-Scheme Jaipur, Rajasthan-302001
4. Dial Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd
3701/A, Phase-IV, GIDC Estate, Vatva,
Ahmedabad-382445
... Defendants
Date of Institution : 09.09.2022
Conclusion of arguments : 20.02.2026
Date of Judgment : 14.03.2026
(Judgment is announced on this date as
per directions of Hon'ble Delhi High
Court vide notification no.64/G-4/
Genl.-I/DHC dated 27.02.2026, as
02.03.2026 was declared holiday.
Decision : Suit is decreed in favor of plaintiff
CS(COMM.) 772/2022 Page no.2 of 25
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for permanent injunction for restraining defendants from infringement of trademark, passing off, Damages, rendition of accounts, delivery up filed under the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
2. Plaintiff has averred in the plaint that it is a company incorporated in the year 1984 and has since then been continuously and extensively engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing, and selling pharmaceutical products. It is stated that plaintiff has marketed more than 100 branded formulations across eight major therapeutic segments and has established its presence in more than 40 countries worldwide. Plaintiff further claims to be a leading provider of self-healthcare devices in India.
3. It is the case of plaintiff that it adopted the trademark "RYTHMIX" in the year 2000 and has been using the said mark and its variants continuously, extensively, and exclusively in relation to pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations. Plaintiff has obtained statutory registrations for the trademark "RYTHMIX" and its variants in India under Class 5, and the details of such registrations are set out hereunder:
CS(COMM.) 772/2022 Page no.3 of 25
4. Plaintiff has further pleaded that by virtue of continuous and extensive use, the trademark "RYTHMIX" has acquired valuable goodwill and reputation in the market, and the products sold under the said mark are associated exclusively with plaintiff. It is pleaded that plaintiff has incurred substantial expenditure towards promotion, advertisement, and marketing of its products under the said trademark. The sales figures for the period from 2016 to 2022, as provided in paragraph 9 of the plaint, demonstrate the commercial success and widespread acceptance of plaintiff's products bearing the trademark "RYTHMIX".
5. It is further averred that owing to continuous innovation and quality assurance, plaintiff has emerged as one of the prominent players in the pharmaceutical sector in India. Plaintiff claims to have more than ten lakh customers in India and asserts that its products bearing the trademark "RYTHMIX" are widely advertised and sold through various e-pharmacies and distribution channels across the country. Plaintiff also claims to have received several awards and recognitions at national as well as international levels. ABOUT DEFENDANTS
6. Defendant No. 1 is stated to be a registered company, which is controlled and managed by Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, who are its Directors. Defendant No. 4, namely Dial Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., is stated to be the manufacturer of the impugned pharmaceutical products bearing the impugned mark "RITHMAX", , while Defendant No. 1 is engaged in the marketing and sale of the said CS(COMM.) 772/2022 Page no.4 of 25 products.
7. Plaintiff has pleaded that upon conducting investigations, it came to its knowledge that Defendant No. 1, through Nippon Seiyaku Pvt. Ltd., had applied for registration of the trademark "RITHMAX" under Application No. 1499535 in Class 5 in respect of pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations. It is pleaded that the said application was examined by the Trade Marks Registry and was objected to under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, in view of plaintiff's prior registered trademark "RYTHMIX" bearing registration No. 1086900. It is further averred that the said application for registration of the impugned mark is still pending and has not been granted registration.
8. Plaintiff has further averred that it came to know, through its field staff, that defendants were manufacturing, marketing, and selling pharmaceutical products under the impugned trademark . According to plaintiff, the said mark is visually, phonetically, and deceptively similar to plaintiff's registered trademark "RYTHMIX", and is being used in relation to identical goods, namely pharmaceutical preparations, thereby causing likelihood of confusion and deception among the consumers. Comparison between plaintiff and defendant mark is as under: -
CS(COMM.) 772/2022 Page no.5 of 25
9. It is the specific case of plaintiff that defendants have dishonestly adopted the impugned mark "RITHMAX", which closely resembles plaintiff's registered trademark "RYTHMIX", with the intention of deriving unlawful benefit from the reputation and goodwill of plaintiff. Plaintiff has alleged that such adoption is mala fide and calculated to mislead consumers into believing that defendant's products originate from, or are associated with plaintiff. It is further averred that defendants are attempting to pass off their goods as those of plaintiff and are thereby infringing plaintiff's statutory and common law rights in the trademark "RYTHMIX". On the basis of the aforesaid averments, plaintiff has filed the present suit.
10. Plaintiff has asserted that this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present suit, inasmuch as plaintiff has its corporate office at Antriksh Bhawan, 22, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, and its products are marketed and sold throughout India, including within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, this court is competent to try and decide the present matter under Trademark Act.
PLEA OF DEFENDANTS
11. Upon service of summons, Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 entered appearance and filed their common written statement, raising certain preliminary objections and contesting the claim of plaintiff. It is averred by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 that plaintiff had applied for registration of the trademark "RYTHMIX" under Application No. 1086900 in Class 5 in the year 2002 CS(COMM.) 772/2022 Page no.6 of 25 on a 'proposed to be used' basis. It is contended that the said application was not based on actual use at the time of filing and, therefore, plaintiff cannot claim distinctiveness or proprietary rights from the alleged date of adoption. It is further contended that upon examination of plaintiff's application, the Trade Marks Registry cited a prior registered trademark "RYTHMIC" under Application No. 983652 as a conflicting mark, thereby demonstrating that plaintiff's mark was not inherently distinctive at the time of filing. Defendants have further contended that, in view of the existence of prior similar marks on the Register, plaintiff's claim of exclusivity over the mark "RYTHMIX" is untenable. It is pleaded that the prefixes "RYTH" and "RITH" are common to the pharmaceutical trade and are used by various proprietors. Accordingly, it is contended that the said prefixes have become publici juris, and plaintiff cannot claim monopoly over the same.
12. It is further averred that Defendant No. 1 has been bona fide manufacturing and marketing its pharmaceutical products under the trademark "RITHMAX" since its adoption and has acquired substantial goodwill and reputation in the market. Defendants have contended that plaintiff has failed to place sufficient material on record to establish actual use, goodwill, reputation, or substantial sales in relation to the mark "RYTHMIX." Defendants have also contended that the trademark "RITHMAX," when considered as a whole, is visually, structurally, and phonetically distinct from plaintiff's mark "RYTHMIX," and there exists no likelihood CS(COMM.) 772/2022 Page no.7 of 25 of confusion or deception among consumers. It is further contended that defendant's products have been openly marketed and sold since the year 2006 through various online platforms and trade channels, and there has been no instance of confusion or deception brought on record by plaintiff. Defendants have further submitted that their products have been widely advertised and sold through various online platforms, including trade and pharmaceutical portals, and that defendants have generated substantial sales under the impugned mark. On these grounds, defendants have prayed for dismissal of the present suit.
13. Defendant No. 4 was served with summons through electronic mode on 11.10.2022. However, despite service, none appeared on behalf of Defendant No. 4, nor was any written statement filed. Accordingly, the right of Defendant No. 4 to file written statement was forfeited, and Defendant No. 4 was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 02.03.2023.
14. Replication was also filed by plaintiff to the written statement of defendant no. 1 to 3, controverting the preliminary objections as not sustainable and further denying and controverting the averments of the written statement on its merits. Plaintiff reiterated the averments contained in the plaint.
15. Vide order dated 02.03.2023 following issues were framed:
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the decree of permanent injunction, as prayed in prayer clause (i) of the present suit? OPP
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the decree of CS(COMM.) 772/2022 Page no.8 of 25 permanent injunction, as prayed in prayer clause (ii) of the present suit? OPP
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the decree of rendition of accounts, as prayed in prayer clause (iv) of the present suit? OPP
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the decree of damages of Rs.25,00,000/-, as prayed in prayer clause
(v) of the present suit ? OPP
5. Whether plaintiff is guilty of suppressing material facts? OPD
6. Whether the present suit is barred by principle of delay and acquiescence? OPD
7. Any other relief, if any ?
16. After framing of issues, case management hearing was conducted and dates were fixed for plaintiff's evidence, defendant's evidence and final arguments. PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
17. In support of its case, plaintiff examined one witness before Local commissioner namely, PW-1 Sh. Deepak Talwar, AR of plaintiff company. PW-1 tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex.PW-1/A, and referred to and proved following documents:
Sl. No. Documents Exhibit/Mark number
1. Original Board Resolution dated Ex. PW-1/1
05.05.2022
2. Original Incorporation Certificate Ex.PW-1/2 (OSR) dated 01.12.1984 issued by of Ministry of Corporate Affairs CS(COMM.) 772/2022 Page no.9 of 25
3. Print-out company Master data Ex. PW-1/3 downloaded from Ministry of Corporate Affairs
4. Print-out of plaintiff's webpage Ex. PW-1/4
5. Scanned copies of Trademark Ex. PW-1/5 (colly) Certificates bearing no. 2680631, 2680633, 2737682 & 2680632
6. Copies of chartered Accountants Ex. PW-1/6 (OSR) certificates dated 27.07.2022
7. Copies of promotional contents of Ex. PW-1/7 (Marked as plaintiff Mark B)
8. Printouts webpages of various e- Ex. PW-1/8 pharmacies selling plaintiff's products
9. Copies of Invoices issued by plaintiff's Ex. PW-1/9 (Marked as company for sale of goods Mark C)
10. Printouts of defendant no. 1's webpage Ex. PW-1/10 downloaded from defendants no. 1's website
11. Printouts of Master data of defendant Ex. PW-1/11 no. 1 obtained from Ministry of Corporate Affairs
12. Printouts of Master data of defendant Ex. PW-1/12 no. 4 obtained from Ministry of corporate affairs
13. Print-out of online status of trademark Ex. PW-1/13(colly) application no. 4897541 & 1499535
14. Printouts of refusal order of TM Ex. PW-1/14 application no. 1499535 alongwith examination report, form TM-1, additional representation sheet, GPA of the authorized representative of Nippon Seiyaku Pvt. Ltd., search report dated 08.03.2007 alongwith examination report, reply to the examination report alongwith supporting documents including CS(COMM.) 772/2022 Page no.10 of 25 images of infringing products
15. Original invoices of infringing Ex. PW-1/15 products dated 20.07.2022
16. Print-outs of images of infringing Ex. PW-1/16 products
17. Print-outs of webpages of third party Ex. PW-1/17 websites showcasing infringing products
18. Print-outs of confirmation of purchase Ex. PW-1/18 order infringing products
19. Affidavit under Section 65B of Ex. PW-1/19 Evidence Act
18. PW-1 was cross-examined by ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1 to 3. Thereafter on 07.06.2023, plaintiff closed its evidence. DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
19. In support of their defense, defendant no. 1 to 3 examined one witness namely, DW-1 Sh. Raman Sharan Gupta. DW-1 tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex. DW-1/A. He referred to and proved following documents: -
Sl. No. Documents Exhibit/Mark number
1. Board resolution dated 21.11.2022 Ex. DW-1/1 executed by defendant no. 1 in favor of Mr. R.S. Gupta
2. Authorization letter issued by Ex. DW-1/2 (colly) defendant no. 2 and 3 in favor of Mr. R.S Gupta
3. Copy of Certificate of Incorporation of Ex. DW-1/3( Marked Nippon Seiyaku Pvt. Ltd consequent as Mark J) upon name change dated 03.07.2012
4. Copy of fresh certificate of Ex. DW-1/4 (Marked incorporation consequent on change of as Mark K) CS(COMM.) 772/2022 Page no.11 of 25 name dated 31.07.2001
5. Copy of fresh certificate of Ex. DW-1/5 OSR incorporation of Nippon Life Science Pvt. Ltd. consequent upon name change dated 24.09.2022
6. Printout of brochure of defendant no. 1 Ex. DW-1/6
7. Printout of Online trademark status of Ex. DW-1/7 (colly) TM NO. 1499535, TM-1 application filed on 30.10.2006 along with examination report, reply and affidavit of user with documents
8. Printout of online status of Trademark Ex. DW-1/8 No. 4897541 applied in the year 2021
9. Printout of defendant no. 1 website Ex. DW-1/9
10. Printout of defendant no. 1 page from Ex. DW-1/10 (colly) indiamart, tradeindia,1mg
11. Copy of defendant no. 1's product Ex. DW-1/11(OSR) under mark RITHMAX
12. Copies of sale invoices issue by Ex. DW-1/12 defendant no. 1
13. CA certificate certifying sales of Ex. DW-1/13 (OSR) turnover of defendant no. 1 from year 2015-2022
14. Details of expenses under mark Ex. DW-1/14 also RITHMAX marked as Mark L
15. Printout of status of page of Trademark Ex. DW-1/15 also No. 1086900 applied by plaintiff along marked as Mark D with examination report
16. Printout of search report from Ex. DW-1/16 trademark office website
20. DW-1 was cross-examined by ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Thereafter on 21.07.2023, defendant no. 1 to 3 closed their evidence.
CS(COMM.) 772/2022 Page no.12 of 25
21. I heard ld. counsels for the parties and have perused the record carefully. My issue-wise findings in the present matter are as under: -
22. ISSUE NO. 1 & 2
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the decree of permanent injunction, as prayed in prayer clause (i) of the present suit? OPP
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the decree of permanent injunction, as prayed in prayer clause (ii) of the present suit? OPP
23. In prayer clause (i), plaintiff prayed for permanent injunction against manufacturing, selling, importing, offering for sale, advertising and directly or indirectly dealing in identical and/or cognate products/services, or otherwise, under the trade mark and trade name "Rithmax"/ "RITHMAX" or any other trade mark etc. which is identical to and/or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's well known trade mark etc., amounting to infringement of plaintiff's registered trade mark. In prayer clause (ii), plaintiff prayed for permanent injunction against passing off in respect of same trade marks.
24. The burden to prove Issue No. 1 & 2 were on plaintiff.
Plaintiff, in its written submissions, has contended that it is the registered proprietor and prior user of the trademark "RYTHMIX" and its variants in respect of pharmaceutical preparations. It has been submitted that defendants have adopted the impugned mark "RITHMAX," which is visually, structurally, and phonetically similar to plaintiff's registered trademark and is being used in respect of identical goods. It is CS(COMM.) 772/2022 Page no.13 of 25 further submitted that in an action for infringement and passing off, the test is that of an average consumer of imperfect recollection, and plaintiff is not required to prove actual confusion. Plaintiff has further contended that defendants have dishonestly adopted the impugned mark with the intention to trade upon the goodwill and reputation of plaintiff. Plaintiff further reiterated the facts made in the plaint and relied upon following judgment in support of his contentions: -
3. B.K Engineering Co v. U.B.H.I. Enterprises (Regd.) & Anr [AIR 1985 Del 210]
4. Ansul Industries v. Shiva Tobacco company [2007 SCC OnLine Del 74]
5. S.Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai [(2016) 2 SCC 683]
6. Bal Pharma Ltd v. Centaur Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. & Anr [2001 SCC OnLine Bom 1176]
7. Suzuki Motor v. Suzuki (India) Limited [(2019) 79 PTC 227]
8. Rolex SA v. Alex Jewellery Pvt. Ltd [(2014) 215 DLT 6]
9. Anvar P.V v. P.K Basheer [AIR 2015 SC 180]
10.Capital Meters Ltd v. B.P. Electric [95(2002) DLT 846]
25. At the outset it is worth to mention that it is an undisputed position on record that plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademark "RYTHMIX" and its variants, including registrations bearing Nos. 2680631, 2680632, 2680633, and CS(COMM.) 772/2022 Page no.14 of 25 2737682 in Class 5, as evidenced by the trademark registration certificates exhibited as Ex. PW-1/5 (colly).
26. Plaintiff has also placed on record Chartered Accountant certificates (Ex. PW-1/6) reflecting substantial sales turnover under the trademark "RYTHMIX," including turnover amounting to Rs. 3.98 crores for the financial year 2021- 2022. Plaintiff has further proved advertisement and promotional expenditure incurred in relation to the said trademark, including expenditure amounting to Rs. 26 lakhs during the same period. Plaintiff has also relied upon promotional materials, invoices, and printouts of e-pharmacy websites (Ex. PW-1/8), demonstrating continuous commercial use and market presence of the trademark.
27. The aforesaid documentary evidence clearly establishes that plaintiff has been using the trademark "RYTHMIX" extensively and continuously and has acquired substantial goodwill and reputation in the market. Plaintiff has, therefore, successfully established the existence of goodwill, which constitutes the first essential ingredient of an action for passing off, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai, (2016) 2 SCC 683.
28. In contrast, defendants have relied upon a Chartered Accountant certificate (Ex. DW-1/13), which merely reflects the overall turnover of Defendant No. 1 company and does not specifically establish sales under the impugned trademark "RITHMAX." Defendants have also placed on record certain website listings. However, defendants have failed to produce any cogent documentary evidence to CS(COMM.) 772/2022 Page no.15 of 25 establish continuous and prior use of the impugned mark since the year 2006, as claimed. Mere assertions without supporting documentary evidence are insufficient to establish prior user, goodwill, or reputation.
29. Furthermore, the online status of trademark applications filed by defendants (Ex. PW-1/13 and Ex. PW-1/14) reflects that defendant's application for registration of the trademark "RITHMAX" was refused by the Trade Marks Registry, inter alia, in view of plaintiff's prior registered trademark. This position further supports plaintiff's case regarding its prior statutory rights and the likelihood of confusion.
30. The next question which arises for consideration is whether the impugned mark "RITHMAX" is deceptively similar to plaintiff's registered trademark "RYTHMIX."
31. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmikant Patel Vs Chetanbhai Shah & Ors [2002 (3) SCC 65] held that: -
"An action for passing-off will then lie wherever the defendant companys name, or its intended name, is calculated to deceive, and so to divert business from the plaintiff, or to occasion a confusion between the two businesses. If this is not made out there is no case. The ground is not to be limited to the date of the proceedings; the court will have regard to the way in which the business may be carried on in the future, and to its not being carried on precisely as carried on at the date of the proceedings. Where there is probability of confusion in business, an injunction will be granted even though the defendants adopted the name innocently. A person may sell his goods or deliver his services such as in case of a profession under a trading name or style. With the lapse of time such business or services associated with a person acquire a reputation or goodwill which becomes a property CS(COMM.) 772/2022 Page no.16 of 25 which is protected by courts. A competitor initiating sale of goods or services in the same name or by imitating that name results in injury to the business of one who has the property in that name. The law does not permit any one to carry on his business in such a way as would persuade the customers or clients in believing that the goods or services belonging to someone else are his or are associated therewith. It does not matter whether the latter person does so fraudulently or otherwise. The reasons are two. Firstly, honesty and fair play are, and ought to be, the basic policies in the world of business. Secondly, when a person adopts or intends to adopt a name in connection with his business or services which already belongs to someone else it results in confusion and has propensity of diverting the customers and clients of someone else to himself and thereby resulting in injury."
32. Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cadila Healthcare Limited v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited 2001 (5) SCC 73] held that: -
"4. The case of the appellant was that its drug 'Falcigo' contains Artesunate for the treatment of cerebral malaria commonly known as 'Falcipharum'..... According to the appellant, it came to know in April, 1998 that the said drug, which was also used for the treatment of Falcipharum Malaria, was being sold by the respondent under the trade mark of 'Falcitab'.....
25. The drugs have a marked difference in the compositions with completely different side effects, the test should be applied strictly as the possibility of harm resulting from any kind of confusion by the consumer can have unpleasant if not disastrous results. The courts need to be particularly vigilant where the defendant's drug, of which passing off is alleged, CS(COMM.) 772/2022 Page no.17 of 25 is meant for curing the same ailment as the plaintiffs medicine but the compositions are different. The confusion is more likely in such cases and the incorrect intake of medicine may even result in loss of life or other serious health problems. In this regard, reference may usefully be made to the case of Glenwood Laboratories, Inc. Vs. American Home Products Corp., 173 USPQ 19(1972) 455 F.Reports 2d, 1384(1972), where it was held as under:
The products of the parties are medicinal and applicant's product is contraindicated for the disease for which opposers product is indicated. It is apparent that confusion or mistake in filling a prescription for either product could produce harmful effects. Under such circumstances, it is necessary for obvious reasons, to avoid confusion or mistake in the dispensing of the pharmaceuticals.
26. It was further submitted on behalf of the appellant that although the possibility of confusion in a drug being sold across the counter may be higher, the fact that a drug is sold under prescription or only to physicians cannot by itself be considered a sufficient protection against confusion. The physicians and pharmacists are trained people yet they are not infallible and in medicines, there can be no provisions for mistake since even a possibility of mistake may prove to be fatal.
27. As far as present case is concerned, although both the drugs are sold under prescription but this fact alone is not sufficient to prevent confusion which is otherwise likely to occur. In view of the varying infrastructure for supervision of physicians and pharmacists of medical profession in our country due to linguistic, urban, semi-urban and rural divide across the country and with high degree of possibility of even accidental negligence, strict measures to prevent any confusion arising from similarity of marks among medicines are required to be taken.
32. Public interest would support lesser degree of proof showing confusing similarity in the case of trade mark in CS(COMM.) 772/2022 Page no.18 of 25 respect of medicinal product as against other non-medicinal products. Drugs are poisons, not sweets. Confusion between medicinal products may, therefore, be life threatening, not merely inconvenient. Noting the frailty of human nature and the pressures placed by society on doctors, there should be as many clear indicators as possible to distinguish two medicinal products from each other. It is not uncommon that in hospitals, drugs can be requested verbally and/or under critical/pressure situations. Many patients may be elderly, infirm or illiterate. They may not be in a position to differentiate between the medicine prescribed and bought which is ultimately handed over to them."
33. Upon comparing the rival marks in the present case, it is evident that both marks are structurally and phonetically similar. The marks share a similar prefix and suffix structure, and their pronunciation is nearly identical. The minor variation in spelling does not materially alter the phonetic identity or overall commercial impression of the marks. It is well settled that deceptive similarity is to be assessed from the perspective of an average consumer of imperfect recollection, who is not expected to make a meticulous comparison of the marks.
34. It is also relevant to note that both parties are engaged in the manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical products, which are sold through common trade channels and target the same class of consumers. In the pharmaceutical sector, a stricter standard is required to be applied, as confusion between medicinal products may have serious consequences. In such circumstances, even a likelihood of confusion is sufficient to establish infringement.
35. The conduct of defendants in adopting a mark that is CS(COMM.) 772/2022 Page no.19 of 25 deceptively similar to plaintiff's registered trademark, without providing any plausible explanation for such adoption, leads to an adverse inference regarding the bona fides of defendants. The adoption of the impugned mark appears to be calculated to ride upon the goodwill and reputation of plaintiff and constitutes misrepresentation likely to deceive consumers.
36. From the evidence on record and the comparative analysis of the rival marks, I am of the considered view that plaintiff has successfully established that defendant's use of the mark "RITHMAX" amounts to infringement of plaintiff's registered trademark "RYTHMIX" and is also likely to result in passing off. The continued use of the impugned mark by defendants is likely to cause confusion among consumers and cause irreparable injury to plaintiff's goodwill and reputation. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of plaintiff, and plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if defendants are not restrained.
37. It has also come on record from the testimony of DW-1 that Defendant No. 4 is the manufacturer of the infringing products bearing the impugned mark and is supplying the same to Defendant Nos. 1 to 3. Accordingly, Defendant No. 4 is equally liable for infringement and passing off.
Accordingly, Issue No. 1 & 2 are decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
ISSUE NOS. 5 & 6
3. Whether plaintiff is guilty of suppressing material facts? OPD CS(COMM.) 772/2022 Page no.20 of 25
4. Whether the present suit is barred by the principle of delay and acquiescence? OPD
38. Since both these issues arise from the objections raised by defendants regarding the maintainability of the suit and the conduct of plaintiff, they are being taken up together for the purpose of adjudication. The burden to prove both these issues was upon defendants.
39. Defendants have contended that plaintiff has suppressed material facts while instituting the present suit. It is their case that plaintiff had earlier filed trademark application No. 1086900 for the mark "RYTHMIX" in the year 2002 on a "proposed to be used" basis, which was subsequently abandoned. It is further contended that during the examination of the said application, the Trade Marks Registry had cited a prior mark "RYTHMIC" under Application No. 983652 as a conflicting mark. On this basis, defendants have argued that plaintiff's mark was not distinctive even at the time of its adoption and that plaintiff failed to disclose these facts before this Court.
40. However, defendants have failed to demonstrate how the alleged non-disclosure materially affects the present cause of action. The fact that an earlier trademark application of plaintiff was filed on a "proposed to be used" basis or that it was subsequently abandoned, does not defeat the statutory rights flowing from plaintiff's existing registered trademarks, which have already been proved on record. Once plaintiff has obtained valid registrations for the mark "RYTHMIX" and its variants, plaintiff is entitled to the CS(COMM.) 772/2022 Page no.21 of 25 statutory protection available under the Trade Marks Act.
41. Defendants have also not placed any material on record to show that the alleged facts were deliberately concealed with the intention to mislead the Court or that such facts were so material that their disclosure would have altered the outcome of the present proceedings. In the absence of any cogent evidence demonstrating intentional suppression or misrepresentation, the plea of suppression of material facts cannot be sustained.
42. Defendants have further contended that the present suit is barred by the principles of delay and acquiescence on the ground that defendants have allegedly been using the impugned mark "RITHMAX" since the year 2006 and that plaintiff, being engaged in the same trade, must have knowledge of such use. However, this contention is not supported by any reliable evidence. Defendants have failed to establish continuous and commercial use of the impugned mark since the year 2006. Mere assertions without supporting documentary material are insufficient to prove long and uninterrupted use, so as to attract the principles of delay, laches, or acquiescence.
43. Even otherwise, it is well settled that mere delay in initiating legal proceedings does not defeat the rights of a trademark proprietor, particularly where the alleged infringement is continuing in nature. In this regard, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Novenco Building and Industry A/S v. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Ltd. & Anr. [2025 INSC 1256], held that: -
CS(COMM.) 772/2022 Page no.22 of 25 "22. The subject matter of the present action is continuing infringement of intellectual property. Each act of manufacture, sale, or offer for sale of the infringing product constitutes a fresh wrong and recurring cause of action. It is well settled in law that mere delay in bringing an action does not legalise an infringement and the same cannot defeat the right of the proprietor to seek injunctive relief against the dishonest user.
23. From the standpoint of the appellant, each day of continuing infringement aggravates injury to its intellectual property and erodes its market standing. The urgency, therefore, is inherent in the nature of the wrong and does not lie in the age of the cause but in the persistence of the peril. The court cannot be unmindful of the fact that intellectual property disputes are not confined to the private realm."
44. In view of the aforesaid legal position and the evidence on record, defendants have failed to discharge the burden cast upon them to prove either suppression of material facts or that the present suit is barred by delay, laches, or acquiescence.
Accordingly, Issue Nos. 5 and 6 are decided against the defendants and in favour of plaintiff.
ISSUE NOS. 3 & 4
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the decree of rendition of accounts, as prayed in prayer clause (iv) of the present suit? OPP
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the decree of damages of Rs.25,00,000/-, as prayed in prayer clause (v) of the CS(COMM.) 772/2022 Page no.23 of 25 present suit ? OPP
45. The burden to prove these issues was upon plaintiff. Plaintiff has sought a decree for rendition of accounts as well as damages against defendants on account of infringement of its trademark and passing off.
46. In my findings on Issue No. 1 & 2, I have already held that defendants have infringed plaintiff's registered trademark and have attempted to pass off their goods under a deceptively similar mark. Thus, the liability of defendants for infringement stands established.
47. The conduct of defendants in adopting and using a mark deceptively similar to plaintiff's registered trademark clearly indicates an attempt to ride upon the goodwill and reputation of plaintiff. In such circumstances, plaintiff is held entitled for rendition of accounts. Plaintiff is also entitled for compensation from the defendants, for infringing the trade mark of plaintiff. However, the quantum of compensation to the plaintiff shall be dependent upon the accounts of profit gained by defendants or loss incurred by the plaintiff, on account of commercial use of impugned trade mark by the defendants.
48. Issue Nos. 3 and 4 are accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff and against defendants.
RELIEF:
49. In view of the above observations, discussion and findings, plaintiff has successfully established infringement and passing off of its registered trademark "RYTHMIX" by defendants. Accordingly, the suit of plaintiff is decreed in CS(COMM.) 772/2022 Page no.24 of 25 favour of plaintiff and against defendants. Defendants, their directors, partners, proprietors, agents, distributors, dealers, representatives and all persons acting for, and on their behalf, are hereby permanently restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising or in any manner using the impugned trademark "RITHMAX" or any other mark deceptively similar to plaintiff's trademark "RYTHMIX", in respect of pharmaceutical or allied products.
50. Furthermore, a preliminary decree is passed in favor of plaintiff for rendition of accounts by the defendants in respect of impugned trade mark of "RITHMAX" defendants are directed to render all accounts in respect of sale of products using aforesaid trade mark of "RITHMAX".
51. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Digitally signed by PULASTYA PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
PRAMACHALA Date:
2026.03.14
Pronounced in the open Court 16:02:41 +0530
on this 14th March, 2026 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Courts)-01 New Delhi District, PHC, New Delhi CS(COMM.) 772/2022 Page no.25 of 25