Cipla Health Limited vs Micro Labs Limited & Ors on 24 September, 2025

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Cipla Health Limited vs Micro Labs Limited & Ors on 24 September, 2025

Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

                          $~37
                          *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +         CS(COMM) 1017/2025 & I.As. 24043-46/2025
                                    CIPLA HEALTH LIMITED                                                     .....Plaintiff
                                                  Through:                            Mr. Amit Sibal, Sr. Advocate with
                                                                                      Ms. Tusha Malhotra, Ms. Sugandha
                                                                                      Yadav, Ms. Bhavya Chhabra, Mr.
                                                                                      Saksham Sapra, Ms. Smriti Nair and
                                                                                      Mr. Ankit Handa, Advocates

                                                                  versus

                                    MICRO LABS LIMITED & ORS.                 .....Defendants
                                                 Through: Mr. Hemant Daswani, Ms. Pranjal
                                                           and Ms. Saumya Bajpai, Advocates
                                                           for D-1

                                                                                      Mr. Dhanur Dha                       Singh    Rana,
                                                                                      Advocate for D-2

                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
                                            ORDER

% 24.09.2025 I.A. 24046/2025 (for exemption)

1. This is an application filed by the Plaintiff under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ['CPC'], seeking exemption from filing clearer copies of the dim documents, which have been filed with the suit.

2. Subject to the Plaintiff filing clearer copies of the dim documents within four (4) weeks from today, exemption is granted for the present.

3. Accordingly, the captioned application stands disposed of.

CS(COMM) 1017/2025 Page 1 of 13

This is a digitally signed order.

4. The present application has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking exemption from instituting pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, read with Section 151 of CPC.

5. During the hearing the parties have stated that they are willing to go to mediation. Separate orders for referring the parties to mediation have been passed.

6. However, keeping in view the facts and the urgent relief prayed for in this suit, this Court is satisfied that plaintiff is entitled to seek exemption from pre-institution mediation as prayed for. The prayer for exemption is accordingly granted.

7. The application stands disposed of.

I.A. 24044/2025 (seeking leave to file additional documents)

8. This is an application filed by the Plaintiff under Order XI Rule 1(4) of CPC [as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015], seeking leave to file additional documents within thirty (30) days.

9. The Plaintiff, if it wishes to file additional documents, shall file the same within 30 days from today, and it shall do so strictly as per the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 ['DHC Rules'].

10. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.

11. Accordingly, the application is disposed of.

CS(COMM) 1017/2025 Page 2 of 13

This is a digitally signed order.

12. This is an application filed by the Plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2, read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking an interim injunction against the Defendants.

13. The present suit pertains to the Plaintiff's intellectual property rights in the trademarks and trade dress of 'COFSILS Lozenges' and 'COFSILS Cough Syrup', and is directed against the Defendants' use of the impugned trademarks and trade dress 'DOLOSILS Lozenges' and 'DOLOSILS Cough Syrup'.

14. Mr. Amit Sibal, learned senior counsel for the Plaintiff, sets up the Plaintiff's case as under:

14.1. The Plaintiff company, originally conceptualised by Cipla Limited, became a separate entity in 2016. It is engaged in the healthcare business and offers a wide range of products across categories such as pain relief, motherhood and childcare, digestive health, and oral care. 14.2. The Plaintiff is the market leader and enjoys second position for the sore throat relief lozenges sold in blister packs, viz, COFSILS Lozenges.

The Plaintiff's COFSIL range of products is available in the form of Cough Syrups, Gargles, Lozenges, and Cough Drop Lozenges. 14.3. One such successful product of the Plaintiff is COFSILS ['Cofsils Lozenges'], which is used with respect to products such as lozenges and cough syrup, etc. These lozenges are sold in various flavours with distinctive CS(COMM) 1017/2025 Page 3 of 13 This is a digitally signed order.

14.4. The Plaintiff also sells cough syrup under the name COFSILS COUGH SYRUP ['Cofsils Cough Syrup'], which is marketed with a unique and distinctive trade dress and packaging/ ['Cofsils Cough Syrup trademark/trade dress/packaging']. The said packaging constitutes the original artistic works and elements of the Plaintiff. 14.5. The Plaintiff's trademark COFSILS was coined, adopted, and used by Cipla Ltd. since 2002, which was thereafter assigned to the Plaintiff in 2016. 14.6. The wordmark COFSILS bearing registration no. 1573332 in Class 5 dated 28.06.2007 with user claim since 01.01.2002 was granted registration in 2009. Plaintiff's registration for the trademark COFSILS and its formatives have been set out in paragraph '15' of the plaint. The Plaintiff also has trademark registrations globally, which have been set out in paragraph '19' of the plaint.

14.7. The Plaintiff conceptualized and adopted the Cofsils Lozenges trademark/trade dress/packaging in 2016 and has continuously used it since then. The packaging incorporates unique and distinctive features such as the CS(COMM) 1017/2025 Page 4 of 13 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/09/2025 at 22:30:14 orange, white, blue, and silver colour scheme, curved design, sparkle motif, square-roundish indentation, specific placement of bibliographic details, and 10 lozenges per pack. These elements collectively form the original get-up of the Plaintiff, exclusively associated with it. Similar themes are also used across other COFSILS products.

Plaintiff's Cofsils Cough Syrup trademark/trade dress/packaging was conceptualized and adopted in 2017 and has been in continuous use since then.

14.8. It is stated that Plaintiffs have dedicated profiles for COFSILS on various social media platforms. Additionally, the products are also featured on various e-commerce/ e-pharmacy platforms.

14.9. It is stated that between May 2025 and August 2025, the Plaintiff's sales turnover amounted to Rs. 35.25 crores for COFSILS Lozenges and Rs. 2.26 crores for COFSILS Cough Syrup. The Plaintiff has incurred promotional expenses amounting to Rs. 6.40 crores between April 2025 and August 2025.

14.10. Owing to long, continuous use and the high quality of COFSILS products, the Cofsils Lozenges trademark/trade dress/packaging, Cofsils Cough Syrup trademark/trade dress/packaging and colour combination of COFSILS products have become uniquely associated with the Plaintiff, leading consumers to believe that any identical or deceptively similar get-up originates solely from the Plaintiff.

14.11.In February 2025, Plaintiff came across infringing products of the Defendants 'DOLOSILS' bearing the impugned mark/trade dress/packaging CS(COMM) 1017/2025 Page 5 of 13 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/09/2025 at 22:30:14 ' / ' ['impugned mark/trade dress/packaging']. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendants are selling DOLOSILS Lozenges and DOLOSILS Cough Syrup under the impugned mark/trade dress/packaging that is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's packaging and trade dress for COFSILS Lozenges and COFSILS Cough Syrup.

14.12. It is stated that Defendant No. 1 has adopted and is selling products under the mark DOLOSILS. These products are being manufactured by Defendant Nos. 2 through its subsidiaries and sister concerns. Defendant No. 3 is manufacturing DOLOSILS Cough Syrups.

14.13. The products being sold by the Defendants under the impugned mark/trade dress/packaging are intended for treating sore throat and cough, similar to that of Plaintiff's COFSILS products.

14.14. It is stated that Defendant No.1 has applied for registration of the wordmark DOLOSILS in Class-5 bearing registration no. 6204739 dated 01.12.2023 on a proposed-to-be-used basis.

14.15. A cease-and-desist notice was issued by the Plaintiff on 28.02.2025, to which vide reply dated 11.03.2025, Defendant No.1 denied the requisitions sought and further proposed to resolve the dispute.

CS(COMM) 1017/2025 Page 6 of 13

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/09/2025 at 22:30:14 14.16. The Plaintiff expressed willingness to discuss on infringement on 21.03.2025, and between 21.03.2025 and 06.05.2025, the parties coordinated to schedule a call. On 07.05.2025, their representatives held a video conference, during which Defendant No. 1 stated they would revert to the Plaintiff. However, despite reminders, the Plaintiff did not receive any response from Defendant No. 1.

14.17. In July 2025, the Plaintiff came across the Defendants' promotion on LinkedIn, showing the expansion of the infringing DOLOSILS Cough Syrups under the impugned mark/trade dress/packaging. 14.18. The Plaintiff, through an independent investigator, purchased the Defendants' infringing products from both the open market and online platforms. Specifically, DOLOSILS Cough Syrup was procured on 16.09.2025, from Virat Medicos, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi, and DOLOSILS Lozenges were purchased online from Amazon, Flipkart, and lmg.com, delivered on 18.09.2025, to a Delhi address.

14.19.The investigation revealed that while the infringing products are available in the Delhi market, they have not yet been extensively launched or made commercially available at full scale.

14.20. On perusal of Defendant No. 1's website, it was found that they falsely claimed the impugned 'DOLOSILS' product was 'launching soon', despite it being available on e-pharmacies and in the offline market, clearly indicating an attempt to evade liability.

15. Learned senior counsel for the Plaintiff states that the Defendants had due knowledge about the Plaintiff, its business, and their various brands, including COFSILS.

CS(COMM) 1017/2025 Page 7 of 13

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/09/2025 at 22:30:14 15.1. He states that Defendants have deliberately and dishonestly adopted a deceptively similar mark and virtually identical packaging, trade dress, colour combination, and pattern to the Plaintiff's well-known COFSILS products, selling them for the same indications of sore throat and cough. 15.2. He states that the suffix 'SILS' used in the Plaintiff's trademark is entirely fanciful and arbitrary, having no origin or derivation from any active ingredient, body part, therapeutic use, or medical ailment. 15.3. The Defendants have virtually lifted the Plaintiff's entire trademark, i.e., COFSILS, and have just added 'DOLO' in DOLOSILS. 15.4. This smart copying demonstrates mala fide intent, as the Defendants have sought to exploit the Plaintiff's goodwill and reputation, including adopting the same outer box design and the suffix 'SILS' from the Plaintiff's mark, which bears no relation to the product's active ingredient. He states that being in the same industry, the Defendants were aware of the Plaintiff's prior adoption and reputation, and their systematic imitation evidences an intent to gain an unfair advantage; the adoption of the impugned mark and trade dress is thus dishonest, and no subsequent use can cure this mala fide conduct.

15.5. He states that the Defendants have virtually copied the Plaintiff's entire trade dress and packaging. A comparison of the Plaintiff's subject trademark, trade dress, and packaging with the Defendants' impugned mark, trade dress, and packaging reveals that they are identical phonetically, structurally, conceptually, and visually, thereby creating a high likelihood of confusion among consumers.

15.6. He further states that the Defendants have no proper reasoning for adopting the colour combination of blue along with orange; additionally, CS(COMM) 1017/2025 Page 8 of 13 This is a digitally signed order.

15.7. He submits that that the trade dress is to be seen as a whole and they are not to be kept side by side for comparison and are not to be dissected or compared element by element.

16. Mr. Hemant Daswani, Advocate, enters appearance on behalf of Defendant No. 1 on advance service. He has handed over a photocopy of the affidavit dated 24.09.2025 and states that he will e-file the same within two (2) days.

16.1 He states at the outset that, Defendant No.1 undertakes to discontinue the impugned trade-dress packaging for the Cough syrups under the mark 'DOLOSILS'.

16.2 He submits that with respect to the packaging of Lozenges ' ', it is not similar to that of the Plaintiff's Cofsils Lozenges. 16.3 He submits that the suffix 'SILS' is common to trade for this product, and it is taken from the organ tonsils. He states that DOLO is the mark of the defendant and therefore, adoption of the trademark DOLOSILS is bonafide. 16.4 He states that more specifically, with respect to the cloud shape of the blister packaging of the Lozenges, it is common to this product and relies upon the documents filed as Document 'B' to the affidavit.

17. In response, Mr. Sibal, learned senior counsel for the Plaintiff submits that a bare comparison of the packaging/trade-dress of the Lozenges of the Plaintiff's products and the Defendant's products, shows that it is an act of CS(COMM) 1017/2025 Page 9 of 13 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/09/2025 at 22:30:14 smart copying as recognised by the Coordinate Bench in Allied Blenders alias Distillers Private Limited vs. Hermes Distillery Private Limited1.

18. After some arguments, Mr. Daswani, learned counsel for the defendant states that Defendant had launched its product in October 2024 and he seeks six (6) weeks' time to exhaust its stock for both Cough syrups as well as Lozenges in its current packaging.

18.1 He states that the stock statement will be filed within two (2) weeks. 18.2 He further states that with respect to the wordmark 'DOLOSILS', the defendant seeks reference to mediation with the plaintiff.

19. This Court has heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

20. It is noted that defendant is not disputing the Plaintiff's assertion with respect to the trade-dress of syrups and has agreed to modify the same.

21. Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademark/trade dress/packaging of Cofsils Lozenges and trademark/trade dress/ packaging' of Cofsils Cough Syrup. It is noted that the pictures of the Defendant's product sold under impugned mark/trade dress/packaging have been set out at para '73' at pages 58 to 61 of the plaint.

A bare perusal of the Defendant's product currently sold under impugned mark/trade dress/packaging shows that is deceptively similar to Plaintiff's Cofsils Lozenges and Cough Syrups trademark/trade dress/packaging and, to a person with average intelligence the two products may appear to be identical. The product category is identical and the trade channel, as also the consumer base, is identical. The identity in the marks is so close that the two products are indistinguishable.

2024 SCC OnLine Del 217, at paragraph 55, 56 and 57.

CS(COMM) 1017/2025 Page 10 of 13

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/09/2025 at 22:30:14

22. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of an ad-interim injunction. The Defendant(s) and their proprietors, their directors, partners or proprietors, subsidiaries, sister concerns etc. as the case may be, are restrained from manufacturing, packaging, selling, offering for sale or distribution, exporting, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in medicinal products, or goods of any description bearing the impugned trade dress/packaging and/or any other marks that are identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs registered COFSILS trade dress/packaging for Lozenges and Cough Syrups.

23. It is clarified that at this stage, the Court is not injuncting the Defendant from using its trademark 'DOLOSILS'; however, the Defendant will ensure that its use of its trademark 'DOLOSILS' is not in the same font and styling as used by the plaintiff on its own mark.

24. The Defendant is granted two (2) weeks' time to file its stock statement and six (6) weeks' time to exhaust its stock for the product Lozenges and its existing packaging. Stocks statement will indicate the batch number and manufacturing date. The Defendant will, within two (2) weeks, file copies of its proposed packaging and not commence use of that packaging without seeking prior approval of the Plaintiff and the Court.

25. Defendant no. 1 after finalizing its new packaging will be at liberty to use the same if it is approved by the plaintiff. However, if there is no agreement then Defendant No. 1 will be at liberty to approach this Court by filing an application.

26. Learned counsel for Defendant No. 2 has entered appearance.

CS(COMM) 1017/2025 Page 11 of 13

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/09/2025 at 22:30:14 26.1 He states that he is merely a contract manufacturer for the Lozenges. He states that the plaintiff provides the packaging, and he only manufactures the product.

26.2 He states that he will abide by the injunction order issued against Defendant No. 1 today.

27. The statement of Defendant No. 2 is taken on record and he is bound down to the same.

28. Learned counsel for the Defendant No. 1 states that Defendant No. 3 manufactures DOLOSILS Cough Syrups for Defendant no. 1 and Defendant no. 3 as well will abide by the injunction order passed today.

29. Defendant no. 3 as well is injuncted from applying the existing packaging material available with it, on any further products to be manufactured for Defendant no. 1. Defendant No. 1 will ensure compliance.

30. Compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC be done within a period of two (2) weeks from today.

31. Reply be filed within two (2) weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within four (4) weeks thereafter.

32. List before the Court on 19.11.2025.

CS(COMM) 1017/2025

33. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.

34. Issue summons. Learned counsel for Defendant Nos. 1 and 2ss accepts summons. Upon steps being taken by the Plaintiff issue summons to Defendant No. 3.

35. In view of the fact that the parties have been referred to Mediation, no directions are being issued to the Defendant No. 1 to file its written statement at this stage.

CS(COMM) 1017/2025 Page 12 of 13

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/09/2025 at 22:30:14

36. With the consent of the parties, the plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 are referred to Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre ['Mediation Centre'].

37. List the matter before the Mediation Centre on 09.10.2025 at 03:30 P.M.

38. List the matter before the Court on 19.11.2025.

39. Copy of the Order be sent to the Organizing Secretary of the Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre for information and compliance.

40. The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, shall be treated as a certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No physical copy of order shall be insisted by any authority/entity or litigant.

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J SEPTEMBER 24, 2025/rhc/AM CS(COMM) 1017/2025 Page 13 of 13 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/09/2025 at 22:30:14

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders