Ipca Laboratories Limited vs Anrose Pharma
2026 Latest Caselaw 6 Bom

Bombay High Court

Ipca Laboratories Limited vs Anrose Pharma on 5 January, 2026

       Digitally
       signed by
 2026:BHC-OS:27
       MEERA                                                                                    comip-77--13.doc
MEERA MAHESH
MAHESH JADHAV
JADHAV Date:
       2026.01.05
       17:05:43                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
       +0530
                                         ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                                                 IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION

                                            COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 77 OF 2013

                   IPCA Laboratories Limited                                       ...Plaintiff
                          Versus
                   Anrose Pharma                                                   ...Defendant

                                                             -----
                   Mr. Minesh Andharia a/w Mr. Jay Shah i/b Krishna & Saurastri Associates LLP for
                   the Plaintiff.
                   None for the Defendant.
                                                             -----


                                                         CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
                                                         RESERVED ON : 22nd DECEMBER 2025
                                                    PRONOUNCED ON : 5th JANUARY 2026

                   JUDGMENT:

1. This present suit is instituted for infringement of trade mark combined

with a cause of action of passing off. The Plaintiff in the present suit is a

company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1913, having its

registered office at the address mentioned in the cause title of the Plaint.

The Plaint seeks a permanent injunction to restrain the Defendant from

infringing the Plaintiff's registered trade mark ZERODOL and from using

the trade mark ZEROVOL-P ("impugned mark") to pass off the Defendant's

goods as those of the Plaintiff.

2. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the impugned mark is deceptively similar

to the Plaintiff's registered trade mark ZERODOL and that both the marks

comip-77--13.doc

are used in relation to the same goods, i.e. pain relief and/or pain

management, medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations.

3. By an Order dated 29th October 2013, this Court granted ex-parte ad-

interim reliefs in respect of infringement of trade mark. Thereafter, this

Court, by an order dated 21 st November 2013, granted leave under Clause

XIV of the Letters Patent. On 9 th December 2013, this Court confirmed the

ad-interim order dated 29th October 2013 in favour of the Plaintiff.

4. Since, despite service of the writ of summons on 17 th January 2014, the

Defendant did not file any written statement, and the suit was transferred

to the list of undefended suits as per the order of the Prothonotary and

Senior Master dated 24th July 2017.

5. On 10th November 2025 the Advocate for the Plaintiff submitted that the

Plaintiff had already led the evidence of one Mr. Harish Kamath, i.e., the

Plaintiff's Company Secretary, who had filed his affidavit in lieu of

examination in chief alongwith a compilation of documents and affidavit

of documents. Accordingly, the Suit stood over to 17 th November 2025 for

the marking of the Plaintiff's documents. Since, however, the Plaintiff's

witness was unavailable, on that date the matter was adjourned to 9 th

December 2025, on which day the Plaintiff's documents were marked.

Submissions on behalf of the Plaintiff

6. It is the case of the Plaintiff that in or about September 1992, the Plaintiff

coined and/or adopted the distinctive trade mark ZERODOL in respect of

medicinal and pharmaceutical preparation. The said mark has been put to

comip-77--13.doc

use in relation to the said goods in or about 2003. The Plaintiff presently

markets more than 10 pharmaceutical combinations under the trade mark

inter alia containing the word 'ZERODOL' as an essential feature thereof

e.g. ZERODOL-P, ZERODOL-PT, ZERODOL-S, ZERODOL-MR,

ZERODOL-TH etc.

7. The Plaintiff is registered proprietor of the mark ZERODOL in class 5

bearing No. 582203. The said registration is valid, subsisting and in force.

Representative copies of the publicity material in respect of the said mark,

statement of annual promotional expenditure (which includes the

expenditure for promotion in respect of "ZERODOL"), and a copy of the

statement of Annual Sales Turnover in respect of "ZERODOL" are annexed

to the Plaint.

8. Learned Counsel for Plaintiff submits that in or about the 2nd week of

October 2013, the Plaintiff came across Defendant's product ("impugned

product") bearing the impugned mark 'ZEROVOL-P' being sold in the

market and accordingly procured Defendant's impugned product bearing

the impugned mark ZEROVOL-P. The specimen of the impugned product

bearing the impugned mark ZEROVOL-P, along with the original invoice,

are annexed as Exhibit "P-10" and Exhibit "P-11" to the compilation of

documents, respectively.

9. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submits that the Defendant is

manufacturing and selling the impugned product under the impugned

mark ZEROVOL-P, the word/expression ZEROVOL of the impugned mark

is an essential feature and the same is confusingly and deceptively similar

comip-77--13.doc

to the Plaintiff's registered mark ZERODOL bearing no. 582203. It is

submitted that the Defendant is using the impugned mark only with a view

to trade upon and cash in on the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff's

registered mark. It is further submitted that since the impugned mark is

used in respect of medicinal preparation, the same seriously exposes the

trade, medical profession and public to an inevitable risk of deception

and/or confusion and jeopardizes public interest at large. In support of his

submissions that the impugned mark ZEROVOL-P of the Defendant is

deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs trade mark ZERODOL.

10.Learned Counsel for Plaintiff then placed reliance on the judgement in the

case of K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar vs Shri Ambal & Co., Madras & Anr. 1,

to point out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the

deceptive similarity between the trade marks SRI ANDAL and SRI AMBAL,

held as follows:

"6. The vital question in issue is whether, if the appellant's mark is used in a normal and fair manner in connection with the snuff and if similarly fair and normal user is assumed of the existing registered marks, will there be such a likelihood of deception that the mark ought not to be allowed to be registered (see In the matter of Broadhead's Application for registration of a trade mark). It is for the court to decide the question on a comparison of the competing marks as a whole and their distinctive and essential features. We have no doubt in our mind that if the proposed mark is used in a normal and fair manner the mark would come to be known by its distinguishing feature "Andal". There is a striking similarity and affinity of sound between the words "Andal" and "Ambal". Giving the due weight to the judgment of the Registrar and bearing in mind the conclusions of the learned Single Judge and the Divisional Bench, we are satisfied that there is a real danger of confusion between the two marks.

7. There is no evidence of actual confusion, but that might be due to the fact that the appellant's trade is not of long standing. There is no visual 1 (1969) 2 SCC 131

comip-77--13.doc

resemblance between the two marks, but ocular comparison is not always the decisive test. The resemblance between the two marks must be considered with reference to the ear as well as the eye. There is close affinity of sound between Ambal and Andal".

He also placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of

Hiralal Prabhudas vs. Ganesh Trading Company & Ors. 2, wherein the

Division Bench of this Court while considering phonetic similarity between

the trade marks HIRALAL and HIMATLAL, held as follows:

"4. The main bone of contention between the parties before us is whether the respondents' label is deceptively similar to the appellants' labels. To that end, it would be appropriate to recapitulate some well-established principles. In Kerly's 'Law of trade Marks and Trade Names' (10 th Edition, pages 456-457) appears the following passage:-

"Two marks, when placed side by side, may exhibit many and various differences, yet the main idea left on the mind by both may be the same. A person acquainted with one mark and not having the two side by side for comparison, might well be deceived, if the goods were allowed to be impressed with the second mark, into a belief that he was dealing with goods which bore the same marks as that which he was acquainted. Thus, for example, a mark may represent a game of football; another mark may show players in a different dress, and in very different positions, and yet the idea conveyed by each might be simply a game of football. It would be too much to expect that persons dealing with trade-marked goods, and relying, as they frequently do, upon marks, should be able to remember the exact details of the marks upon the goods with which they are in the habit of dealing. Marks are remembered rather by general impressions or by some significant detail than by any photographic recollection of the whole. Moreover, variations in details might well be supposed by customers to have been made by the owners of the trade mark they are already acquainted with for reasons of their own."

In Re: Sandow Ltd. (1914) 31 RPC 196, it was held that identity of the figure in the centre is immaterial, the overall similarity between the two marks being the touchstone. In James C. & Bros. v. N.S.T. Co., AIR 1951 Bom 147, it was held by the Division Bench that it is important to find out what is the distinguishing or essential feature of the trade mark already registered and what is the main feature or the main idea underlying that

2 AIR 1984 BOM 218

comip-77--13.doc

trade mark and ascertain if the trade mark whose registration is sought contains the same distinguishing or essential features or conveys the same idea. The question to be asked is what would be the salient feature of the mark which in future would lead the purchaser to associate the particular goods with that trade mark. In Corn Products v. Shangrila Food Products, AIR 1960 SC 142, holding that "Glucovita" and "Gluvita" were deceptively similar, it was observed that in deciding the question of similarity between the two marks the approach must be from the point of view of a man of average intelligence and of imperfect recollection and to such a person the overall structure and phonetic similarity and the similarity of the idea in the two marks is reasonably likely to cause confusion between them. In Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satyadeo, AIR 1963 SC 449, coming to the conclusion that to an unwary purchaser of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, the overall structure and phonetic similarity between the two names "Amritdhara" and "Lakshmandhara" was likely to deceive or cause confusion, it was held that if a person is put in a state of wonderment it is sufficient to hold that the mark is likely to deceive or cause confusion. In F-Hoffimann-La Roche & Co. Ltd. v. Geoffrey Manners & Co. Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1970 SC 2062, it was held that marks must be compared as a whole, the true test being whether the totality of the proposed trade mark is such that it is likely to cause deception or confusion or mistake in the minds of persons accustomed to the existing trade mark. Microscopic examinations not called for. Both visual and phonetic tests must be applied. In Parle Products v. J.P. & Co., AIR 1972 SC 1359, it was held that what must be considered are the broad and essential features of the two marks which should not be placed side by side in order to find out the differences in design. It is enough if the impugned mark bears an overall similarity to the registered mark as would be likely to mislead a person usually dealing with one to accept the other if offered to him. Each case must be judged on its own features and it would be of no use to note on how many points there was similarity and in how many matters there was absence of it.

5. What emerges from these authorities is (a) what is the main idea or salient features, (b) marks are remembered by general impressions or by some significant detail rather than by a photographic recollection of the whole, (c) overall similarity is the touchstone, (d) marks must be looked at from the view and first impression of a person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, (e) overall structure, phonetic similarity and similarity of idea are important and both visual and phonetic tests must be applied, (f) the purchaser must not be put in a state of wonderment, (g) marks must be compared as a whole, microscopic examination being impermissible, (h) the broad and salient features must be considered for

comip-77--13.doc

which the marks must not be placed side by side to find out differences in design and (i) overall similarity is sufficient. In addition, indisputably must also be taken into consideration the nature of the commodity, the class of purchasers, the mode of purchase and other surrounding circumstances...

...

12. These contentions are as fallacious as is Mr. Kale's reliance on the above passage in Kerly misplaced. "Hiralal" and "Himatlal" are both common Indian names. There is a great deal of similarity in the phonetics of these two words be uttered in Gujarat by consumers who may even be illiterate. This phonetic similarity taken in conjunction with the otherwise similarity in the get-up of the offending label with the appellants' labels would, to our minds, undoubtedly confuse an ordinary purchaser of average intelligence and imperfect recollection and who may even be illiterate."

11.Basis the above, he submitted that since the Plaintiffs trade mark

ZERODOL and the impugned trade mark ZEROVOL-P were both visually

and phonetically virtually identical coupled with the fact that the Plaintiff

was the registered proprietor of ZERODOL the Plaintiff is entitled to and

had made out a case for the grant of relief in terms of prayer clauses (a),

(b) and (d) of the Plaint which read as follows:

a) that the Defendants by themselves through their partners, proprietors, servants, agents, dealers, manufacturers, stockiest and/or otherwise howsoever be restrained by a perpetual order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from in any manner using in relation to any pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations, the impugned trade mark ZEROVOL-P/ZEROVOL and/or any other word or mark which is identical with and/or deceptively similar in any manner whatsoever to that of the Plaintiff's trade mark ZERODOL so as to infringe the Plaintiff's trade mark ZERODOL bearing registration no. 582203 being Exhibit - 'A' hereto;

b) that the Defendants by themselves through their partners, proprietors, servants, agents, dealers, manufacturers, stockiest and/or otherwise howsoever be restrained by a perpetual order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from in any manner using in relation to any pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations, the impugned trade mark

comip-77--13.doc

ZEROVOL-P/ZEROVOL and/or any other word or mark which is identical with and/or deceptively similar in any manner whatsoever to that of the Plaintiff's trade mark ZERODOL-P/ZERODOL so as to pass off and/or enable others to pass off the Defendants' goods and for that of the Plaintiff;

d) that the Defendants be ordered and decreed to delivery up to the Plaintiff for destruction without compensation all the articles, packing materials, finished goods, dies, papers, samples, stationery, visual aids, stickers, blister strips, publicity materials, catch covers and all other things bearing and/or containing reference in any manner whatsoever to the impugned trade mark ZEROVOL-P/ZEROVOL in any manner whatsoever;

12.In addition to the above, the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted

that the present suit, being a Commercial Suit, it is governed by Section

35 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, as amended by Section 16 of the

Commercial Courts Act, 2015, entitling the Defendant to an order of

costs. He pointed out from the provision that the costs contemplated

thereunder would include legal fees and all other expenses incurred in

connection with the proceedings. He pointed out that Section 35(3) of the

amended Civil Procedure Code, 1908 provides that while awarding costs,

due regard is also required to be given to the conduct of the Defendant.

13.In the aforesaid context, he submitted that given the conduct of the

Defendant, not only was the Plaintiff entitled to an order of costs, but also

was entitled to an order of exemplary costs. He has pointed out that in

addition to costs as contemplated under the Commercial Courts Act,

2015, this Court also had the inherent power under Section 151 of the

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to grant exemplary costs in favour of the

Plaintiff. He submitted that such an order was required to be passed to

curb the menace of misuse of the Plaintiff's trade mark especially when

comip-77--13.doc

the products are medicines, which calls for a stricter test of comparison.

Considering that the Defendant's adoption of the impugned mark does

not repose any confidence and is, in my view, clearly dishonest and

appears to have been undertaken in bad faith, the Defendant is liable to

pay damages/punitive damages and costs including costs of litigation.

14. He thus submitted that the Defendant is entitled to pay punitive damages

of an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- along with interest calculated at 21% per

annum from the date of filing the present suit till the final judgement in

favour of the Plaintiff. Considering further the nature of infringement

and passing off, the nature of rival goods being medicinal and

pharmaceutical preparations, and with a view to dissuading others from

indulging in such activities, it is imperative that exemplary costs

(including an order for costs of the litigation) be awarded to the Plaintiff.

15.After hearing the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and going through the

original documents and the evidence of the Plaintiff, none of which has

either been disputed or much less denied, I am satisfied that the Plaintiff

has made out a case which entitles the Plaintiff the reliefs sought for, the

reasons are as follows :

A. The Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trade mark

ZERODOL as is evident from the trade mark registration certificate

appended at Exhibit A1 to the Plaint.

B. The Plaintiff has also proved through the evidence of Plaintiff's

witness-1, i.e., Mr. Harish Kamath that the Plaintiff has been using

comip-77--13.doc

the trade mark ZERODOL since the year 2003 by relying upon

several sales invoices from the year 2003 which are appended at

Exhibits F1 to F20 to the Plaint and have been duly proved in

evidence. The Plaintiff has also, through the evidence of the

Plaintiff's Witness -1, proved that the Plaintiff has, since the year

2003, been continuously, extensively and exclusively using the

trade mark ZERODOL.

C. The Plaintiff has also established a substantial sales turnover which

is appended at Exhibit E to the Plaint and has also been proved in

evidence. The Plaintiff has also produced a Chartered Accountant

Certificate substantiating its commercial use of the mark. The

evidence establishes that ZERODOL has acquired distinctiveness and

is exclusively associated by the public and persons in the trade with

the Plaintiff alone. Thus, the Plaintiff has established goodwill in its

registered trade mark ZERODOL.

D. A perusal of the rival trade marks makes plain that they are virtually

identical. The Defendant has not so much as even attempted to make

out a case of honest or bona fide adoption of the mark ZEROVOL-P.

The Defendant has not even attempted to in any manner justify its

adoption and use of the mark ZEROVOL-P or that the Defendant

has any other defence available under the law.

comip-77--13.doc

E. From the material upon which the Plaintiff has placed reliance, the

adoption of the mark ZEROVOL-P by the Defendant is subsequent

to the Plaintiff's registration and use. Thus, adoption and use of the

mark ZEROVOL-P by the Defendant is plainly dishonest and

without any due cause, and the use of the mark by the Defendant in

respect of pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations constitutes

infringement of the Plaintiff's statutory rights.

F. Equally, given that the impugned mark is virtually identical to the

Plaintiff's registered trade mark and both are used in respect of

medicinal or pharmaceutical products, the likelihood of confusion is

imminent. Thus, the use by the Defendant of the impugned trade

mark would almost certainly result in the goods of the Defendant

being passed off as those of the Plaintiff and hence the Plaintiff

would be entitled to relief to restrain the Defendant from passing off

the goods of the Defendant as those of the Plaintiff. Hence, the

Plaintiff has made out a case for infringement of its trade mark and

for passing off.

G. There is nothing on record that militates against anything that has

been averred in the Plaint and deposed to by the Plaintiff's.

Furthermore, none of the Plaintiffs documents or material upon

which reliance has been placed have been denied by the Defendant

The Defendant has not at any stage appeared in the proceedings

comip-77--13.doc

despite service of the Writ of Summons. The evidence of the

Plaintiff's witness is uncontroverted.

H. Although the Plaintiff has claimed damages of Rs. 5,00,000/- with

21% interest, I find that the Plaintiff has not led any evidence in

support of the Plaintiffs claim for damages or loss suffered. A

perusal of the Plaintiff Affidavit of Evidence discloses that the

Plaintiff has not even attempted to prove the loss or damages which

have been claimed in the Suit.

I. The present Suit, being a Commercial Suit, is governed by the

provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Section 35 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended by Section 16 of the

Commercial Courts Act, 2015, mandates that costs shall ordinarily

follow the event and be awarded to the successful party. The

provision further requires the Court, while determining costs, to

have due regard, inter alia, to the conduct of the parties. In the facts

of the present case, the record reflects that the Defendant, in spite of

being duly served, has chosen not to defend the Suit nor even cross

examine the Plaintiff's Witness. This conduct is an additional factor

that makes it clear that the defendant's adoption of the impugned

mark was dishonest and was actuated in bad faith. Moreover, the

impugned products being medical products, a stricter order of costs

must follow, as the Plaintiffs have profited at the potential risk to the

public at large. In these circumstances, having regard to the conduct

comip-77--13.doc

of the Defendant and the statutory mandate under Section 35 of the

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, as amended, the Plaintiff is entitled to

an award of costs.

16. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following order:

ORDER

i. The Suit is decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (d).

ii. The Defendant shall pay costs of Rs. 15,00,000/- to the Plaintiff

within a period of 8 weeks from today.

iii. In the event, the costs are not paid within a period of 8 weeks

from today, interest at the rate of 8% shall apply.

iv. The office shall return the original documents to the Advocate

for the Plaintiff upon the Advocate of the Plaintiff handing over

a true copy of this Order along with photostat copies of the

said compilation of documents duly certified by them as true

copies.

               v.    The Suit is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.




                                                             ( ARIF S. DOCTOR, J. )