Bombay High Court
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs Venkata Subbarao on 16 February, 2026
64 IA(L)-716-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 716 OF 2026
IN
COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 31 OF 2026
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd ...Applicant
Versus
Venkata Subbarao and Another ...Respondents
------------
Mr. Mahesh Mahadgut, Ms. Kalyani R. Paunikar, Mr. Kaivalya Shetye for
Plaintiff.
Mr. Nehal Deshmukh i/b Pritesh Burad and Associates for Respondents.
------------
CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : FEBRUARY 16, 2026 P. C. :
1. The present Application is an action for infringement of trade mark.
2. Learned counsel for Plaintiff tenders the Affidavit-of-service evidencing the service on Defendants on 23rd January, 2026.
3. Learned counsel appearing for Defendants, after arguments of Mr. Mahadgut are concluded, seeks adjournment. Considering that the rival products are medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations meant for treating different ailments, this Court is not inclined to consider the Sairaj 1 of 5 64 IA(L)-716-2026.doc request for adjournment particularly, when the service has been effected on 23rd January, 2026.
4. Mr. Mahadgut submits that the Plaintiff conceived and adopted the trade mark "ASCORIL" in the year 1978 in respect of its pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations. He would point out various registrations which have been obtained for the trade mark "ASCORIL" as set out in Paragraph No. 6 of the Plaint with the earliest registration being secured of the word mark "ASCORIL" in the year 1978. He would submit that the Plaintiff's products have been advertised in the medicinal journal and points out the publication of February, 2000. He submits that the Defendant is using the rival mark "ACERIL" which is visually and phonetically similar to the Plaintiff's registered trade mark. He submits that the Plaintiff's mark is an arbitrary mark and has not been derived from the components of drug and similarly, the Defendant's mark which is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's mark is not derived from its components. He would therefore submit that there is no probable defense available to the Defendant for adopting deceptively similar mark.
5. He would point out to the invoices which are produced along with the Plaint to show the earliest invoice at page no. 150 of 15 th November, 1986. He would further submit that insofar as the Defendant is concerned, the Plaintiff's came across the Defendant's Sairaj 2 of 5 64 IA(L)-716-2026.doc application seeking registration of the trade mark "ACERIL" in the Trade Mark Journal which was applied on 19 th October, 2021 with user claim of 1st August, 2009. He submits that the Plaintiff filed its opposition to the application seeking registration and in the counter-statement, there is no explanation tendered by Defendant as regards adoption of deceptively similar mark and in the evidence, the invoices produced are of the year 2019 though user is claimed of the year 2009. He submits that in the counter-statement, the stand which has been adopted by the Defendant is that the totality of impression created by trade mark is required to be considered. He submits that when so considered, it is evident that the impugned mark is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered trade mark. He would further submit that cease-and-desist notice was issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendant on 10 th December, 2024 to which, there was no reply and reminders which have been sent had been returned with the remark 'refused'. He submits that considering the products are medicinal preparations, the use of the infringing mark would have a disastrous effect and is required to be restrained.
6. Learned counsel appearing for Defendants in the absence of any instructions is unable to advance any submissions.
7. The rival marks are "ASCORIL" vs. "ACERIL".
8. Insofar as the Plaintiff's mark is concerned, the Plaintiff has Sairaj 3 of 5 64 IA(L)-716-2026.doc secured several registrations for its trade mark "ASCORIL" and its variants and its details are set out in Paragraph No. 6 of the Plaint. It is specifically pleaded that the mark was adopted by the Plaintiff in the year 1978 in respect of its medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations with the earliest registration certificate being obtained in the year 1978. The Plaintiff's product is used for treatment of cough and cold, chest congestion and has active pharmaceutical ingredients i.e. BromhexinHydrochloride+guaifenesin+menthol+terbutaline sulphate whereas the Defendant's product is used for the purpose of treating pain and inflammation and has the ingredients Aceclofenac and Paracetamol. It is therefore, clear that the rival products are used for treating different ailments and have different components. The composition of the rival products would prima facie indicate that the Plaintiff's mark "ASCORIL" is an arbitrary mark and is not derived from its active pharmaceutical ingredients. Prima facie the rival marks "ASCORIL" vs. "ACERIL" are visually and phonetically similar. The Defendants have deleted the vowel "O" and consonant "S" from the Plaintiff's mark and has replaced with alphabet "E", which deletion does not take away the phonetic similarity.
9. Prima facie the Defendant's mark be pronounced similar to the Plaintiff's mark. In the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. vs. Cadila Sairaj 4 of 5 64 IA(L)-716-2026.doc Pharmaceuticals Limited1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in the case of medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations, even slight possibility of confusion is required to be restrained. Insofar as the Defendant is concerned, though the Defendant has applied for registration of its mark in the year 2021 with user claim of 1 st August, 2009. Prima facie before the trade marks registry, the evidence which has been produced by the Defendant is the invoice of November, 2019. Prima facie there is no probable defense available to the Defendant for adopting the deceptively similar mark in respect of its medicinal preparation which is used for treatment of different ailment. Prima facie the visual and phonetical similarity, if not restrained, would lead to disastrous effect.
10. In light of above, ad-interim relief is granted in terms of prayer clause (a).
11. Liberty to the Defendants to file their Affidavit-in-reply within period of two weeks from today.
12. Rejoinder, if any, to be filed within one week thereafter.
13. Stand over to 23rd March, 2026.
14. Ad-interim relief granted earlier to continue till next date.
[SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.] 1 AIR 2001 SC 1952.
Sairaj 5 of 5