Trademark dispute in pharmaceutical sector sees 'GRILINCTUS' triumph in initial legal battle over 'PIL-LINCTUS'
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has granted an interim injunction restraining Psychotropics India Limited from using the trademark 'PIL-LINCTUS', citing deceptive similarity to the registered mark 'GRILINCTUS' owned by Laboratoires Griffon Private Limited. The decision comes amidst concerns over potential consumer confusion in the pharmaceutical industry, especially given the health implications of such confusion.
The court, presided by Mr. Arif S. Doctor, J., delivered the judgment on June 15, 2026, in response to an interim application filed by Laboratoires Griffon in the Commercial IP Suit No. 256 of 2022. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant's use of the 'PIL-LINCTUS' mark for a cough syrup closely resembled their own 'GRILINCTUS' mark, raising the potential for consumer deception and confusion.
The plaintiffs, represented by Senior Counsel Dr. Veerendra Tulzapurkar, contended that the rival marks were phonetically, structurally, and visually similar. They emphasized that both products were medicinal, highlighting the severe consequences of any potential confusion. The court agreed, applying a stricter standard for deceptive similarity due to the health risks associated with medicinal products, as established in prior Supreme Court judgments such as Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Defending their position, Psychotropics India Limited, represented by Mr. Alankar Kirpekar, argued that 'LINCTUS' is a descriptive term in the pharmaceutical trade, suggesting that no exclusivity could be claimed by the plaintiffs over it. However, the court rejected this defense, noting that the defendant's own application for trademark registration of 'PIL-LINCTUS' undermined their argument that 'LINCTUS' was a generic term.
The court's order emphasized the need to prevent consumer confusion in pharmaceutical products, citing the potential life-threatening consequences of such confusion. It acknowledged the plaintiffs' longstanding registration and use of the 'GRILINCTUS' mark since 1973, alongside their diligent efforts to protect their trademark rights, which included prior injunctions against similar marks.
The decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding trademark protections, particularly within sectors where public health could be compromised. The interim relief granted will remain in effect, with the court's full consideration of the case to follow.
Bottom line:-
Trademark Law - The rival marks must be assessed as a whole for deceptive similarity, particularly in the case of pharmaceutical products, where confusion can have serious consequences.
Statutory provision(s): Trade Marks Act, 1999 Sections 17(2)(b), 28, 29, 36
