Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals ... vs Walter Healthcare Private Limited And ... on 2 May, 2025

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals ... vs Walter Healthcare Private Limited And ... on 2 May, 2025

Bench: Amit Bansal

                          $~39.
                          *     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +         CS(COMM) 403/2025
                                    GLAXOSMITHKLINE
                                    PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED                                                         .....Plaintiff
                                                                  Through:            Mr. Urfee Roomi, Ms. Janaki Arun
                                                                                      and Mr. Ayush Dixit, Advocates.

                                                                  versus

                                    WALTER HEALTHCARE
                                    PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR                                                         .....Defendants
                                                                  Through:

                                    CORAM:
                                    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
                                                 ORDER

                          %                      02.05.2025

                          I.A. 10977/2025 (exemption)
                          1.        Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. Plaintiff is exempted from filing original/ translated documents at this stage.

3. The application stands disposed of.

I.A. 10976/2025 (O-XI R-1(4) of the Commercial Courts Act)

4. The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff seeking leave to file additional documents.

5. The plaintiff is permitted to file additional documents in accordance with the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

6. Accordingly, the application is disposed of.

CS(COMM) 403/2025 Page 1 of 7

This is a digitally signed order.

7. As the present suit contemplates urgent interim relief, in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Krithi, 2023 SCC Online SC 1382, exemption from the requirement of pre-institution mediation is granted.

8. The application stands disposed of.

I.A. 10979/2025 (seeking permission to file documents in sealed cover)

9. This application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff seeking permission to file documents in sealed cover.

10. For the reasons stated in the application, the plaintiff is permitted to file documents in sealed cover.

11. The application stands disposed of.

CS(COMM) 403/2025

12. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.

13. None appear on behalf of the defendants despite advance service.

14. Issue summons.

15. Summons be issued to the defendants through all modes. The summons shall state that the written statement(s) shall be filed by the defendants within thirty days from the date of the receipt of summons. Along with the written statement(s), the defendants shall also file affidavit of admission/denial of the documents of the plaintiff, without which the written statement(s) shall not be taken on record.

16. Liberty is given to the plaintiff to file replication(s), if any, within thirty days from the receipt of the written statement(s). Along with the replication(s) filed by the plaintiff, affidavit of admission/denial of the documents of the defendants be filed by the plaintiff.

CS(COMM) 403/2025 Page 2 of 7

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 29/06/2025 at 17:02:20

17. The parties shall file all original documents in support of their respective claims along with their respective pleadings. In case parties are placing reliance on a document, which is not in their power and possession, its detail and source shall be mentioned in the list of reliance, which shall also be filed with the pleadings.

18. If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same shall be sought and given within the timelines.

19. List before the Joint Registrar on 24th July, 2025 for completion of service and pleadings.

20. List before the Court on 19th September, 2025.

I.A. 10975/2025 (under O-XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC)

21. The present suit has been filed seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of the registered trademark of the plaintiff, as well as passing off and other ancillary reliefs.

22. The plaintiff, GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited, is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013. GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited is a member of the GSK group of companies, of which GSK plc is the ultimate parent company. GSK is an international science-led global healthcare company, that researches and develops a broad range of innovative specialty medicines, namely, pharmaceuticals, medicines, and vaccines, and it has numerous subsidiaries around the world, one of them being the plaintiff.

23. The case set up in the plaint is that the plaintiff uses numerous marks on and in relation to its pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations. Among the marks used by the plaintiff is the mark CALPOL and marks that incorporate the mark CALPOL, such as CALPOL T (hereinafter collectively CS(COMM) 403/2025 Page 3 of 7 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 29/06/2025 at 17:02:20 referred to as the "plaintiff's CALPOL marks"). The plaintiff's CALPOL marks are used on and in relation to tablets, syrups, and oral drops, containing the active ingredient Paracetamol, in combination with other ingredients, such as Tramadol, for the treatment of mild-to-moderate pain, common cold, headache and fever, for both adults and children.

24. It is submitted that the plaintiff first used its mark CALPOL in the year 1995. Since then, the plaintiff has sold and continues to sell, medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations, including tablets, syrups and oral drops, bearing one or more of the plaintiffs CALPOL marks in India.

25. It is submitted that the plaintiff is the proprietor of two valid and subsisting registrations in India, as illustrated in the table below:

                            Reg.        No. Mark                         Registration Date                  Valid Until
                            and Class
                            230069 in CALPOL                             July 13, 1965                      July 13, 2027
                            Class 5
                            5249980 in CALPOL                            December 16, 2021                  December 16, 2031
                            Class 5              FAST

26. The defendant no.1 is Walter Healthcare Private Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013. The defendant no.2 is Virender Pal Bhasin, an Indian citizen, who is one of the directors in defendant no.1 company. As per the knowledge and belief of the plaintiff, the defendant no.2 has filed a trade mark application bearing no. 5753703, for the mark WALPOL, covering "nutraceutical or healthcare preparations and substances for human use and veterinary use" in class 5, dated 6th January, 2023 on a 'proposed to be used' basis and defendant no.1 is CS(COMM) 403/2025 Page 4 of 7 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 29/06/2025 at 17:02:20 engaged in the business of manufacture, marketing and sale of pharmaceutical and medicinal products, including tablets bearing the WALPOL mark.

27. Further, as per the plaintiff, the defendants' pharmaceutical and medical preparations, including tablets, bearing the WALPOL mark, contain the active ingredient Paracetamol, and are sold in the form of tablets.

28. The plaintiff first became aware about the defendants in September 2024, when it came across the defendant no.2's trade mark application, for the mark WALPOL. It was found that the defendant no.2 is also a director in the defendant no.1 company. Accordingly, the plaintiff, through its Indian counsel, on 10th September, 2024, sent a cease-and-desist letter to the defendant no.2 as well as the counsel of the defendant no.2 as per the Trade Marks Registry website. Subsequently, on 23rd September, 2024. No replies to the said notices were received by the plaintiff on behalf of the defendants.

29. The plaintiff also initiated opposition proceedings against Application no.5753703, for the mark WALPOL on 15th October, 2024. In response to the plaintiff's opposition, the defendant no.2 filed its counter-statement on 2nd December, 2024. Consequently, the plaintiff filed its evidence under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, on 5th February, 2025, followed by the defendant no.2's evidence under Rule 46 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, filed on 1st April, 2025. While the plaintiff still could not ascertain any use of the defendants' WALPOL mark, the defendant no.2 filed certain invoices going back to the year 2016 pertaining to the sale of the defendants' tablets under the mark WALPOL as well as labelling and packaging indicating the defendants are preparing to sell pharmaceutical preparations under the defendants' WALPOL Mark containing the active ingredient CS(COMM) 403/2025 Page 5 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.

30. A comparison of the rival marks is as below:

The defendants' WALPOL mark The plaintiff's CALPOL mark WALPOL CALPOL

31. A bare perusal of the above comparison would show that the defendants' WALPOL mark is nearly identical/deceptively similar to the plaintiff's CALPOL trademark. The defendants have merely replaced the letter C with the letter W from the plaintiff's CALPOL mark and the same does not assist in differentiating the rival marks, which are being used in respect of identical goods, i.e. pharmaceutical products including tablets containing the active ingredient paracetamol and are sold through identical trade channels to the same consumers. It is further asserted that in cases that involve medicinal products, it is a well-settled principle of law that a stricter approach is required because any confusion between the respective medicinal products is likely to have a disastrous effect on public health.

32. None appear on behalf of the defendants despite advance service.

33. Issue notice.

34. Notice be issued to the defendants through all modes.

35. Reply(ies) be filed within four weeks.

36. Rejoinder(s) thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.

37. Based on the averments in the plaint and the aforesaid submissions, a prima facie case is made out in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. It appears that the defendants have adopted the WALPOL mark in order to ride on the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff's CALPOL marks.

CS(COMM) 403/2025 Page 6 of 7

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 29/06/2025 at 17:02:20

38. Balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Moreover, irreparable injury would be caused to the plaintiff if the defendants continue to use the WALPOL mark. Prejudice would also be caused to the public as the marks of the defendants are deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff and likely to cause confusion in the market.

39. Consequently, till the next date of hearing, the defendants, its directors, any other individuals, officers, managers, shareholders, employees, agents, dealers, licensees, companies and retailers, stockists, chemists, subsidiaries, or any persons/entities that are related or affiliated to the defendant, as the case may be, and all others, acting for and on behalf of the defendant, individually or collectively, are restrained from manufacturing, exporting, offering for sale, selling, displaying, advertising, marketing, whether directly or indirectly, and whether on the Internet or otherwise, any tablets and/or any other pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations bearing the defendants' WALPOL mark or any other marks and that are nearly identical/deceptively similar to the plaintiff's CALPOL trademarks.

40. Compliance under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) be done within five days.

41. List before the Joint Registrar on 24th July, 2025 for completion of service and pleadings.

42. List before the Court on 19th September, 2025.

AMIT BANSAL, J MAY 02, 2025 kd CS(COMM) 403/2025 Page 7 of 7 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 29/06/2025 at 17:02:20

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders