The Division Bench of Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by RSPL Health Pvt. Ltd. (“Appellant”), challenging the decision of the Ld. District Judge, who had earlier refused to grant interim injunction against Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited (“Respondent”). The suit was based on the Appellant claiming trade mark infringement and passing off owing to Respondent’s use of the PRUEASE mark (used for tablets treating constipation), on the ground of that it is deceptively similar to Appellant’s PROEASE mark (used for sanitary napkins).
RSPL Health Pvt. Ltd. contended that it adopted the PROEASE mark in 2012 for sanitary napkins, and intends to expand its product range under the same mark. It further claimed statutory rights over PROEASE and related formative marks in Class 5. In response, the Respondent submitted that the PRUEASE mark was coined in 2017 by combining “PRU” (from the active pharmaceutical ingredient, Prucalopride) and “Ease” (denoting relief). It was contended that the mark had been used continuously and in good faith since its adoption.
The District Judge had refused interim relief in favour of RSPL Health Pvt. Ltd. on the ground that the goods in question, i.e., sanitary napkins and a prescription drug, were entirely dissimilar, had different trade channels, packaging, and consumer base, making confusion unlikely.
Upholding the reasoning, the Division Bench held that the rival products were neither allied nor cognate. The court noted trademark protection cannot extend to unrelated goods merely because they fall under the same class. It further held that RSPL Health Pvt. Ltd. had failed to make out a prima facie case, as the nature, usage, and consumer base of the products were entirely distinct. The Court also dismissed the Appellant’s argument regarding prospective expansion under the PROEASE mark as speculative. Moreover, the court took note of the Respondent’s assurance that it had no intention of expanding the PRUEASE mark to sanitary napkins. The Court also found that the Respondent’s adoption of the PRUEASE mark to be bona fide and concluded that no likelihood of consumer confusion or passing off had been demonstrated. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
RSPL Health Pvt. Ltd. v. Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited & Anr. [FAO (COMM) 65/2025], judgment dated June 12, 2025.