Court Finds Defendants' Use of Identical Mark on Pain Relief Products Likely to Cause Confusion; Plaintiff Exempted from Pre-Institution Mediation Due to Urgency of Relief
In a significant ruling dated October 13, 2026, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Vikas Mahajan, granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of M/s Nectar Biopharma Private Limited, restraining Herbax Ayurveda and its associated entities from manufacturing, marketing, or selling pharmaceutical products under the mark "FASTACTIVE," which the court found to be identical and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark.
The suit, filed as CS(COMM) 1119 of 2026, arose after the plaintiff discovered that the defendants were marketing pain relief products under the mark "FASTACTIVE," identical to the plaintiff's registered trademark in Class 5, which covers pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations, including topical gels, sprays, and ointments. The plaintiff, a reputed manufacturer with decades of presence in the Indian pharmaceutical sector, demonstrated ownership of the trademark "FASTACTIVE" through registration certificate no. 1845995 valid until March 23, 2030, and assignment of rights from the original registrant.
The court noted the substantial goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff's mark, supported by turnover figures exceeding Rs. 60 crore in the 2024-25 financial year. It was observed that the defendants' use of the identical mark for similar products in the same trade channels was likely to cause confusion among consumers, thereby constituting trademark infringement and passing off.
Justice Mahajan emphasized the three-pronged test for granting interim injunctions - prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury - all of which were satisfied. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a strong prima facie case and that the balance of convenience lay in favor of protecting the plaintiff's trademark rights. It also highlighted the potential irreparable harm to the plaintiff's reputation and goodwill if the injunction was not granted.
Further, the court exempted the plaintiff from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, acknowledging the urgency and genuine contemplation of the relief sought. The defendants were directed to file their written statement within 30 days of summons, accompanied by affidavits of admission or denial of documents filed by the plaintiff, failing which their written statement would not be considered.
The interim injunction prohibits the defendants, including their partners, directors, agents, and distributors, from using the "FASTACTIVE" mark or any deceptively similar mark for pharmaceutical products until further orders. The court also ordered issuance of notices to the defendants and scheduled further proceedings for framing of issues and completion of pleadings.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's strong stance against trademark infringement and the protection of intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical sector, especially where consumer confusion is likely to impact public health products.
Bottom Line:
Trade Marks - Infringement and passing off - Ex parte ad interim injunction granted in favour of registered proprietor of trademark "FASTACTIVE" against defendants using identical/deceptively similar mark "FASTACTIVE" for pharmaceutical pain relief products - Court held that prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury were made out - Plaintiff also exempted from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act on ground of urgent interim relief.
Statutory provision(s):
Trade Marks Act, 1999; Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Section 12A; Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2; Order XI Rule 1(4) Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Section 151 CPC
M/s Nectar Biopharma Private Limited v. Herbax Ayurveda, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3001079
