Delhi High Court – Orders
Sanofi Consumer Healthcare India … vs Sgs Pharmaceutical Private Limited on 4 August, 2025
Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~42
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 789/2025 & I.A. 18740/2025, I.A. 18741/2025
SANOFI CONSUMER HEALTHCARE INDIA LIMITED
.....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra, Ms. V. Mohini
and Mr. Udayvir Rana, Advocates
versus
SGS PHARMACEUTICAL PRIVATE LIMITED .....Defendant
Through: Mr. Manoj Kumar Garg and Mr.
Kundan Roy, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
ORDER
% 04.08.2025
I.A. 18741/2025
1. This is an application under Section 12A(1) of the Commercial Courts
Act, 2015 [‘Act of 2015’] read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 [‘CPC‘] seeking exemption from exhausting the remedy of
pre-litigation mediation.
2. Having regard to the facts that the present suit contemplates urgent
interim relief, and this Court is persuaded to grant an ad-interim injunction
in the facts of this case as well as in light of the judgement of the Supreme
Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi1, exemption from the
requirement of pre-institution mediation is granted to the plaintiff.
3. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
1
(2024) 5 SCC 815
CS(COMM) 789/2025 Page 1 of 14
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 06/08/2025 at 22:04:25
CS(COMM) 789/2025
4. The present suit has been filed under Sections 134 and 135 of the
Trade Marks Act, 1999 as well as Sections 51 and 62 of the Copyright Act,
1957, seeking a decree of permanent injunction against infringement of
trademark, infringement of copyright and passing off, unfair competition,
rendition of accounts, damages and delivery up with respect to Plaintiff’s
registered trademark.
5. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.
6. Issue summons. Mr. Manoj Kumar Garg, learned counsel on behalf of
the defendant accepts summon. He confirms the receipt of the suit paper-
book and waives the right of formal service of summons.
7. The defendant is directed to file its written statement within thirty
(30) days. The defendant shall also file affidavit of admission/denial of the
documents filed by the plaintiff, failing which the written statements shall
not be taken on record.
8. The plaintiff is at liberty to file replication thereto within thirty (30)
days after filing of the written statement. The replication shall be
accompanied by affidavits of admission/denial in respect of the documents
filed by the defendant, failing which the replication shall not be taken on
record.
9. 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.
10. It is made clear that any unjustified denial of documents may lead to
CS(COMM) 789/2025 Page 2 of 14
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 06/08/2025 at 22:04:25
an order of costs against the concerned party.
11. Any party seeking inspection of documents may do so in accordance
with the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
12. List before the learned Joint Registrar (J) for completion of pleadings
on 16.09.2025.
13. List before the Court on 12.01.2026.
I.A. 18740/2025 (Under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC)
14. This application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 read with
Section 151 CPC, has been filed by the plaintiff seeking following reliefs: –
a) Grant an ad-interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the
Defendant against infringement of Plaintiff’s registered trademarks
‘COMBIFLAM’ under No. 426051, ‘COMBIFLAM VET’, under No.2747470, under No. 3320487 and ‘COMBIFLAM,
Pain gone, zindagi (life) on’ under No. 3559775 restraining the Defendant,
its promoters, directors, assigns, relatives, successors-in-interest,
licensees, franchisees, partners, representatives, servants, distributors,
employees, agents etc. or anyone associated with them from using the
mark COMBIPAR and objectionable trade dress/ packaging/ get-up/
layout/ colour combination/ colour arrangement/ overall representation/blister packaging / , or any other mark or
marks, identical to or deceptively similar to or containing the Plaintiff’s
registered trademarks ‘COMBIFLAM’ under No. 426051,‘COMBIFLAM VET’, under No. 2747470, under No.
3320487 and ‘COMBIFLAM, PAIN GONE, ZINDAGI (LIFE) ON’ under
No. 3559775, respectively, either as a trade mark/corporate name/domain
name, on their website, social media webpages, online trade directories,
online medical trade portals etc. and/or in any manner whatsoever so as to
infringe the same;
b) Grant an ad-interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the
Defendant against infringement of Plaintiff’s copyright vesting in the
distinctive artwork/ trade dress/ packaging/ get-up/ layout/ colour
combination/ colour arrangement/ overall representation/ blisterCS(COMM) 789/2025 Page 3 of 14
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 06/08/2025 at 22:04:25
packaging/ , by restraining the Defendant,
its promoters, directors, assigns, relatives, successors-in-interest,
licensees, franchisees, partners, representatives, servants, distributors,
employees, agents etc. or anyone associated with them from using the
objectionable trade dress/ packaging/ get-up/ layout/ colour combination/
colour arrangement/ overall representation/ blister packaging
/ , or any other artwork/ trade dress/
packaging/ get-up/ layout/ colour combination/ colour arrangement/
overall representation/ blister packaging/ ,
and/or in any manner whatsoever so as to infringe the same;
c) Grant an ad-interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the
Defendant restraining the Defendant, its promoters, directors, assigns,
relatives, successors-in-interest, licensees, franchisees, partners,
representatives, servants, distributors, employees, agents etc. or anyone
associated with them from using the mark COMBIPAR and objectionable
trade dress/ packaging/ get-up/ layout/ colour combination/ colour
arrangement/ overall representation/ blister packaging
/ , used in respect thereof and/or any other
mark identical to or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s trade mark
COMBIFLAM, COMBIFLAM VET, and
COMBIFLAM, PAIN GONE, ZINDAGI (LIFE) ON and distinctive
artwork/ trade dress/packaging/getup/layout/colour combination/colour
arrangement/ overall representation/blister packaging
/ used in respect thereof in any manner
whatsoever so as to pass off or enable others to pass off their goods as and
for the goods of the Plaintiff;
d) Grant an ad-interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the
CS(COMM) 789/2025 Page 4 of 14
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 06/08/2025 at 22:04:25
Defendant directing the Defendant to take steps to remove all references to
the impugned mark COMBIPAR and objectionable trade
dress/packaging/get-up/layout/colour combination/ colour arrangement/
overall representation/blister packaging / ,
used in respect thereof and/or any other mark identical to or deceptively
similar to the Plaintiff’s trade mark COMBIFLAM, COMBIFLAM VET,
and COMBIFLAM, PAIN GONE, ZINDA GI (LIFE)
ON and distinctive artwork/ trade dress/packaging/getup/ layout/ colour
combination/colour arrangement/ overall representation/blister
packaging / used in respect thereof, from any
and all online mediums including in particular Defendant’s online listings,
social media networking sites and all third party websites, online trade
portals, e-commerce platforms, online medical trade portals, e-pharmacies,
etc.
e) Grant an ad-interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the
Defendant directing the Defendant to produce before this Hon’ble Court or
any person nominated/designated/appointed by this Hon’ble Court all
accounts in general and invoices and sales figures in particular including
audited balance sheets, bank statements, goods and services tax records,
complete details of batch number of products manufactured, complete
details of stock of products manufactured, sold and in inventory, complete
details of total sales with respect to products under the impugned mark
COMBIPAR and objectionable trade dress/packaging/ get-up/layout/
colour combination/ colour arrangement/overall representation/blister
packaging / , used in respect thereof;
f) Grant orders in terms of prayer (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) hereinabove ex-
parte; and ”
15. The relevant facts, as stated in the pleadings are as under: –
16. It is stated that the plaintiff is a part of the Sanofi Group, which is a
global and diversified healthcare leader, and which discovers, develops as
CS(COMM) 789/2025 Page 5 of 14
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 06/08/2025 at 22:04:25
well as distributes therapeutic solutions focused on patients’ need.
16.1. It is stated that the plaintiff adopted the trademark COMBIFLAM in
the year 1984 with respect to ‘ibuprofen’ and ‘paracetamol’ tablets. It is stated
that the plaintiff’s products under the trademark COMBIFLAM were first
introduced in India in the year 1984.
Further, the trade mark COMBIFLAM is registered in favour of the
plaintiff since 22.08.1994 under Registration No. 426051 in Class 5 for
“medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations”. It is stated that the said
trademark has been renewed regularly and is currently valid and renewed up
to 22.08.2025. It is further stated that the plaintiff has also secured
registration for the trademarks ‘COMBIFLAM VET’,
and ‘COMBIFLAM, PAIN GONE, ZINDAGI (LIFE) ON’ under
Registration Nos. 2747470, 3320487 and 3559775 respectively, in Class 5.
16.2. It is stated that the plaintiff has adopted and uses a distinctive artwork/
trade-dress/packaging/get-up/layout/colour-combination/colour-arrangement
/blister packaging , with respect to the
products sold under the trademark COMBIFLAM. It is stated that the said
artwork/trade-dress/packaging constitutes original ‘artistic works’ within the
meaning ascribed under the Copyright Act, 1957 and, therefore, protection
under the said statute in respect of the artworks is available to the Plaintiff.
16.3. It is stated that the plaintiff’s products under the trademark
COMBIFLAM are the third highest prescribed brand in the pharmaceutical
CS(COMM) 789/2025 Page 6 of 14
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 06/08/2025 at 22:04:25
industry, with more than 1.67 crore prescriptions per annum and the sales
figure pertaining to plaintiff’s product sold under the mark COMBIFLAM
for the year 2024 amounted to Rs. 197.83 crores. It is stated that details
regarding sales figures and expenditure on advertisement qua plaintiff’s
products sold under the under the trademark COMBIFLAM are mentioned
in paragraph nos. 18 and 19 of the plaint, respectively.
16.4. It is stated that the defendant is engaged in the business of
manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical medicines. It is stated that the
plaintiff is aggrieved on account of the defendant’s adoption and use of the
impugned mark ‘COMBIPAR’ and impugned trade-packaging
, which is identical/ deceptively similar
to plaintiff’s trademark and trade-dress/ packaging for products sold under
the mark COMBIFLAM.
16.5. It is averred that the plaintiff’s trademark COMBIFLAM and
distinctive artwork/ trade-dress used in respect thereof is extremely well-
known and it considers the same as its valuable intellectual property and
vigorously enforces and defends such rights against any act of infringement
and/or passing off. And in view of these facts, the plaintiff has filed the
present suit.
17. Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the
defendant’s adoption and use of the mark COMBIPAR is nearly identical/
deceptively similar to plaintiff’s prior, registered and well-known trademark
COMBIFLAM.
CS(COMM) 789/2025 Page 7 of 14
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 06/08/2025 at 22:04:25
17.1. He states that the mark, trade-dress/packaging and blister packaging
are being used by the defendant in respect of identical products of the
plaintiff i.e., pharmaceutical products used for treatment of pain related
ailments containing the identical drug ingredients ibuprofen and
paracetamol.
17.2. He states that the defendant company is a habitual infringer and there
are several orders passed by this Court and other Courts, restraining the
defendant from using trademark and trade-dress of other pharmaceutical
companies and their brands. He refers to averments at paragraph 29 of the
plaint.
17.3. He states that the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
31.05.2021 passed in CS(COMM) 245/2021 titled Sanofi India Limited v.
Ridley Life Science Private Limited has similarly granted ad-interim
injunction in favour of the plaintiff vis-à-vis an infringing mark
CONCIFLAM.
17.4. He states that the plaintiff issued a cease-and-desist notice dated
03.10.2019 to the defendant, thereby calling upon the defendant to give up
the misuse; however, in response to the said letter, the defendant vide its
reply dated 14.10.2019 refused to give up use of the impugned mark and
trade-dress on the ground that the impugned mark is dissimilar from the
plaintiff’s prior, registered and well-known mark COMBIFLAM.
17.5. He states that thereafter, the plaintiff vide letter dated 01.10.2021,
called upon the defendant to provide an explanation for the misuse and
calling upon them to cease all use of the mark COMBIPAR, if any. In
response to the said letter, the Defendant vide its letter dated 14.10.2021,
informed that the defendant had re-commenced use of the mark
CS(COMM) 789/2025 Page 8 of 14
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 06/08/2025 at 22:04:25
COMBIPAR since July 2020 and shall not give up use of the impugned
mark.
17.6. He states that meanwhile, several communications were exchanged
but to no avail. He states that in April 2025, the plaintiff’s representatives
were informed that defendant’s products were available in the market.
Accordingly, the plaintiff conducted enquiries which revealed that defendant
has re-commenced selling products under the mark COMBIPAR and
objectionable trade-dress/packaging.
17.7. He states that that the plaintiff’s trademark COMBIFLAM and
distinctive artwork/trade-dress used in respect thereof is extremely well-
known and it considers the same as its valuable intellectual property and
vigorously enforces and defends such rights against any act of infringement
and/or passing off.
17.8. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Cadila Health
Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.2 to contend that the test of
deceptive similarity is of a higher standard in case of pharmaceutical
products and a lower threshold for confusion has to be maintained in such
cases.
17.9. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Midas Hygiene
Industries (P) Ltd. and Another v. Sudhir Bhatia and Others3 to state
that the delay in bringing the action against the defendant is not sufficient to
defeat grant of injunction, more so given the goods in question.
18. In response, Mr. Manoj Kumar Garg, learned counsel for the
defendant submits that the defendant is using the impugned mark
2
(2001) 5 SCC 73
3
(2004) 3 SCC 90
CS(COMM) 789/2025 Page 9 of 14
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 06/08/2025 at 22:04:25
COMBIPAR for some time.
18.1. He states that the defendant has obtained a valid license from the
Drug Licensing-cum-Controlling Authority to manufacture COMBIPAR
Tablets.
18.2. He states that the products sold by the defendant under the mark
COMBIPAR do not amount to infringement or passing of with respect to the
plaintiff’s mark COMBIFLAM.
18.3. He states that even though the plaintiff was aware that the defendant
has been using the mark COMBIPAR since atleast 2019, the plaintiff did not
initiate any court proceedings against the defendant.
18.4. He states that plaintiff has failed to invoke pre-litigation mediation as
per the mandate of Section 12A of the Act of 2015 and relies upon the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Dhanbad Fuels Private Limited v.
Union of India (UOI) and Ors.4
19. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
20. The plaintiff is the owner of the registered trademark COMBIFLAM.
The details of the registration of the various products of the plaintiff, which
are sold under the trademark COMBIFLAM are provided in paragraph no.
15 of the plaint. It is admitted that that the defendant’s impugned mark
COMBIPAR is not registered.
21. For ease of reference, the registered trademark/trade-dress of the
plaintiff and the impugned mark/ trade-dress of the defendant, as set out in
the plaint [at paragraph no. 4], is reproduced hereinbelow: –
4
2025 INSC 696
CS(COMM) 789/2025 Page 10 of 14
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 06/08/2025 at 22:04:25
Plaintiff’s Defendant’s
Trade Mark/Artistic Work Mark/Artistic WorkCOMBIFLAM COMBIPAR
22. The plaintiff has produced the products of the parties for the
inspection of this Court. In the facts of this case, on a visual comparison the
impugned mark/trade-dress/product packaging of the defendant is
deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trademark/trade-dress/product
packaging, and to a person with average intelligence these two (2) outer
packages may appear to be identical. The colour combination of Red, Blue
and White, used on the outer package is strikingly identical as well. The
CS(COMM) 789/2025 Page 11 of 14
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 06/08/2025 at 22:04:25
placement/layout of essential features on the outer package of these products
is also identical. Thus, it is evident that the trade-dress employed by the
defendant for its product is deceptively similar to the trade-dress employed
by the plaintiff for its product sold under trademark COMBIFLAM.
23. It is also evident that the defendant has reproduced the similar artistic
work in the blister strip of its product. The shape, size and colour of the
tablets of the plaintiff’s product COMBIFLAM and defendants’ product
COMBIPAR are also nearly identical. Even the maximum retail price of
these two (2) products is similar. The essential features appearing on the
plaintiff’s blister strip also appear on the defendant’s blister strip. It
therefore prima facie appears that the defendant has not only adopted a name
which is similar to plaintiff’s trademark but has also adopted a trade-dress,
which would amplify the possibility of confusion.
24. Prima facie, the defendant’s infringing mark COMBIPAR is
deceptively similar to plaintiff’s registered trademark COMBIFLAM. The
impugned infringing mark when applied on the impugned trade-dress on
both the outer packaging and the blister strip, would make the product(s) of
the plaintiff and defendant indistinguishable to a consumer with average
intelligence and imperfect recollection. The two marks are phonetically
similar. The plaintiff’s drug in question is a scheduled drug and the Supreme
Court in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra)
at paragraph nos. 22, 25 and 27 has observed that in case of drugs the test of
deceptive similarity has to be applied strictly so as to avoid confusion. The
judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Modi-Mundipharma Pvt.
CS(COMM) 789/2025 Page 12 of 14
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 06/08/2025 at 22:04:25
Limited v. Speciality Meditech Pvt. Ltd. and Another5 at paragraph
26.2.1 to 26.2.10 is also instructive and applicable in the facts of this case.
25. To a query from this Court, the defendant is unable to explain its basis
for adopting the impugned mark and especially the impugned trade-dress.
This Court is therefore, prima facie of the opinion that the adoption of the
impugned mark and trade-dress is itself dishonest and consequentially in
view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Midas Hygiene Industries
(P) Ltd. and Another v. Sudhir Bhatia and Others (supra), the delay in
bringing this action by the plaintiff would not be a ground to deny injunction
in case of infringement.
26. The submissions of the defendant that in view of the legal notices
exchanged between the parties since 2019, the plaintiff ought to have
invoked pre-litigation mediation as per Section 12A of Act of 2015 fails to
persuade this Court. The plaintiff has sought exemption from pre-litigation
mediation, which has been allowed in I.A. 18741/2025. Since the said
application has been allowed, the said objection does not survive for
consideration.
27. Accordingly, the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of
an ad-interim injunction. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of
the plaintiff and the plaintiff will suffer an irreparable loss if the interim
injunction is not granted at this stage.
28. The defendants are hereby restrained by an ad-interim injunction in
terms of prayer clauses ‘a’, ‘b’, ‘c’ and ‘d’ until final disposal of this
application.
29. Issue notice. Learned counsel for the defendant accepts notice.
5
2025 SCC OnLine Del 4627
CS(COMM) 789/2025 Page 13 of 14
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 06/08/2025 at 22:04:25
30. Let the reply to this application be filed within a period of four (4)
weeks, from receipt of notice. In its reply, the defendant shall disclose the
information sought for as per prayer clause ‘e’ including the inventory of the
product using the impugned mark and trade-dress/packaging.
31. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of four (4) weeks
thereafter.
32. List before the learned Joint Registrar (J) for completion of pleadings
on 16.09.2025.
33. List before the Court on 12.01.2026.
34. The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official
website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, shall be treated
as a certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No
physical copy of order shall be insisted by any authority/entity or litigant.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
AUGUST 4, 2025/rhc/MG
CS(COMM) 789/2025 Page 14 of 14
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 06/08/2025 at 22:04:25
[ad_1]
Source link