Court finds “Bevatas” and “Bevetex” marks dissimilar in composition, usage, and packaging, dismisses likelihood of confusion despite both being anti-cancer drugs.
In a significant judgment dated May 29, 2026, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, allowed the appeal of Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited and set aside the permanent injunction against the use of its trademark “Bevatas.” The suit was instituted by Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited alleging trademark infringement and passing off of its registered mark “Bevetex.”
The dispute involved two anti-cancer drugs marketed under the respective trademarks: Intas’s “Bevatas,” containing the molecule Bevacizumab, and Sun Pharma’s “Bevetex,” containing Paclitaxel. Both parties conceded that the drugs are fundamentally different in molecular composition, therapeutic use, and mode of administration.
The Respondent, Sun Pharma, initially pleaded causes of action including infringement, passing off, unfair competition, misappropriation of goodwill, and damages. However, during trial, it admitted it had no commercial interest and pursued the suit solely in public interest, abandoning claims for damages and passing off.
The Court scrutinized the pleadings and evidence, observing that the plaint was vexatiously pleaded with multiple causes of action despite the admitted dissimilarity of the drugs and absence of commercial loss to the Respondent. The Court emphasized the obligation of truthful and precise pleadings under Order VI Rule 2 of the CPC and criticized the Respondent for maintaining untenable claims.
On the core issue of infringement under Section 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the Court held that the Respondent failed to prove likelihood of confusion among the relevant class of purchasers—namely oncologists, chemists, trained nurses, and patients. The sole witness for the Respondent, a sales manager, was found incompetent and unreliable on this point. No evidence was produced of actual confusion or deceptive similarity in the market.
The Court conducted a detailed comparative analysis of the rival marks “Bevatas” and “Bevetex,” considering phonetics, structure, visual impression, and packaging. It noted that the prefixes “Bev” and “Beva” are publici juris in pharmaceutical trade for drugs containing Bevacizumab and that the suffixes “Tas” and “Tex” are distinct. The Court found that the marks differ materially in pronunciation and visual presentation.
Further, the Court highlighted the substantial differences in the drugs themselves—their molecular composition (biological vs. synthetic), indications (first-line vs. second-line treatment for different cancers), dosage, administration protocols, and packaging. Both drugs are Schedule H medicines administered intravenously under strict medical supervision, minimizing any realistic possibility of confusion.
Relying on established legal principles including the Supreme Court’s decision in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001), the Court emphasized that in cases of non-identical goods, proof of likelihood of confusion requires cogent evidence which was lacking here. The Court also distinguished several judgments cited by the Respondent on factual grounds.
In conclusion, the Court set aside the injunction granted by the learned Single Judge, held that the use of “Bevatas” by Intas does not infringe Sun Pharma’s registered trademark “Bevetex,” and dismissed the suit with costs. The Court ordered the Respondent to pay the Appellant’s costs as determined by the Taxation Officer within eight weeks.
This judgment underscores the importance of precise pleadings and evidence in trademark infringement suits, especially involving pharmaceutical products with differing active ingredients and therapeutic applications. It reinforces that mere similarity in marks is insufficient without evidence of real likelihood of confusion among the relevant class of purchasers, particularly in the highly specialized and regulated domain of oncology drugs.
Bottom line:-
Trademark infringement - Where rival pharmaceutical drugs are dissimilar in composition, therapeutic use, and mode of administration, and their marks differ visually, structurally, and phonetically, no likelihood of confusion or trademark infringement arises despite both falling under the same class of medicinal preparations.
Statutory provision(s): Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 29(2)(b), Order VI Rule 2 CPC, Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC
