Court affirms that defendant's adoption of "REDDY" mark was not bona fide, reinforcing plaintiff Dr. Reddy's Laboratories' goodwill and prior use; review petition dismissed.
In a landmark decision dated August 14, 2026, the Delhi High Court (Division Bench) dismissed the review petition filed by Reddy Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (RPL), thereby upholding a permanent injunction granted in favor of Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. (DRL) in a long-standing trademark dispute over the use of the mark "REDDY" in the pharmaceutical sector.
The dispute originated with DRL instituting a suit in 2003 seeking to restrain RPL from using the "REDDY" mark on pharmaceutical products, alleging passing off, trademark infringement, and seeking damages. The Single Judge had granted a permanent injunction against RPL in 2013, which RPL challenged through an appeal (RFA(OS) 138/2013). Meanwhile, DRL initiated rectification proceedings before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to remove RPL's registered trademark "REDDY," which was ordered removed in 2013. RPL challenged the IPAB order via a writ petition, and the Delhi High Court, in a common judgment in May 2026, dismissed both the appeal and the writ petition.
RPL sought a review of this judgment, contending errors in the Court's reliance on IPAB findings, the basis for establishing goodwill and prior use, and the invocation of certain statutory provisions. However, the Division Bench, comprising Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla, found no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.
The Court clarified that the IPAB's order was upheld on legal grounds, independent of the passing off action, which was adjudicated on primary evidence including documentary records, sales invoices, advertisements, and witness admissions establishing DRL's goodwill and prior use of the mark "REDDY." The Court rejected RPL's claim that "REDDY," being a common surname, was adopted bona fide, emphasizing that the defendant's knowledge of DRL's business, the timing of trademark registration shortly after an agency agreement, and lack of contemporaneous evidence of use demonstrated dishonest adoption.
Further, the Court distinguished this case from the Supreme Court precedent in Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. v. Yashwantrao Mohite Krushna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, noting that unlike in that case, DRL had produced primary, contemporaneous evidence of goodwill rather than relying solely on contractual evidence. The Court also underscored that passing off claims do not require CA-certified documents exclusively and can be established through a mosaic of evidence.
The Court held that the cumulative circumstances proved that RPL's adoption and use of the "REDDY" mark were tainted from inception and not entitled to protection under Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Consequently, the permanent injunction granted to DRL was justified and maintained.
In summary, the Delhi High Court's judgment reinforces the principle that the adoption of a trademark, even if it involves a common surname, must be bona fide and not create confusion or false trade connections with an established business. The decision affirms DRL's reputation and goodwill in the pharmaceutical industry and protects it from unfair competition.
Bottom Line:
Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Use of a common surname as a trademark - Adoption and use of the mark must be bona fide and should not cause confusion or false trade connection with an existing reputed business.
Statutory provision(s):
Trade Marks Act, 1999 Sections 9, 11, 35, 57; Companies Act, 1956 Section 158; Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order XLVII Rule 1
Reddy Pharmaceuticals v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2970420
