Blue Cross Laboratories Secures Victory Against RB Remedies Over Deceptively Similar Trademark
In a significant ruling on December 16, 2025, the Bombay High Court, presided over by Justice Arif S. Doctor, delivered a judgment favoring Blue Cross Laboratories Private Limited in a trademark infringement and passing off suit against RB Remedies Private Limited. The court granted a permanent injunction to Blue Cross, preventing RB Remedies from using the trademark "CEFDON," which was found to be deceptively similar to Blue Cross's registered trademark "CEDON."
The dispute centered around the use of trademarks for pharmaceutical products, specifically cough syrups. Blue Cross Laboratories, represented by Mr. Vinod Bhagat, argued that "CEFDON" closely resembled their registered trademark "CEDON," both visually and phonetically, potentially leading to consumer confusion. The court concurred, emphasizing the likelihood of deception due to the similarity in the trademarks used for identical medicinal products.
Despite the issuance of a cease and desist notice by Blue Cross in August 2014, RB Remedies persisted in using the contentious trademark. The court noted that RB Remedies failed to contest the proceedings, which further supported Blue Cross's claims of dishonest and mala fide intent in adopting the similar mark.
Justice Doctor highlighted the importance of protecting public health by enforcing stricter regulations in pharmaceutical trademark cases. The judgment underscored that deceptive practices in this sector pose risks to consumers and must be deterred through legal measures.
In addition to the injunction, the court awarded compensatory costs of Rs. 5 Lakhs to Blue Cross Laboratories, citing the defendants' negligent conduct and failure to contest the suit. The court emphasized that costs should follow the event, in line with Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. This provision underscores the necessity of compensating successful litigants for actual costs incurred, especially when the defendants' actions are deemed dishonest.
The judgment is a landmark in enforcing intellectual property rights within the pharmaceutical industry, highlighting the judiciary's role in safeguarding public interest and maintaining fair business practices.
Bottom Line:
Intellectual Property - Trademark infringement and passing off - Deceptive similarity between trademarks "CEDON" and "CEFDON" - Permanent injunction granted along with compensatory costs.
Statutory provision(s):
- Trade Marks Act, 1999
- Commercial Courts Act, 2015
- Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (as amended)
