Delhi High Court | C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 122/2025

Decision: August 17, 2026

The article discusses rectification petition filed by Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited (Dr Reddy’s) under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation of Razenta Pharmaceuticals Private Limited’s (Razenta) registered trademark DAPLOGIN in Class 5. Dr. Reddy’s contended that DAPLOGIN is deceptively similar to its prior registered trademark DAPLO, with both marks being used for Dapagliflozin-based anti-diabetic medicines. After hearing both sides, the Delhi High Court allowed Dr. Reddy’s petition and directed cancellation of the DAPLOGIN registration.

Background

Dr. Reddy’s adopted and commenced use of the trademark DAPLO in 2020 for pharmaceutical products containing Dapagliflozin, used in the treatment of Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus. Dr. Reddy’s holds valid trademark registrations in India and other jurisdictions, and the mark DAPLO has acquired substantial goodwill and market recognition.

Razenta applied for and obtained registration of DAPLOGIN under Registration No. 5208898 on a “proposed to be used” basis. The mark was published in the Trade Marks Journal on June 17, 2024, and registered on November 1, 2024. Dr. Reddy’s claimed that it became aware of the registration only in March 2025, when Razenta’s product appeared on the Tata 1MG platform and the registration was reflected in the Trade Marks Registry records. It then filed the present cancellation petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Key Issues

1. Whether DAPLOGIN is deceptively similar to DAPLO.
2. Whether registration of DAPLOGIN for identical pharmaceutical goods is likely to cause confusion among consumers.
3. Whether DAPLO or the prefix “DAP” is common to the trade/publici juris.

Dr. Reddy’s Arguments/Submissions

1. Dr. Reddy’s is the prior adopter, user and registered proprietor of the mark DAPLO since 2020, and therefore enjoys superior statutory and common law rights.
2. DAPLO is a coined mark with no dictionary meaning and does not describe or identify the salt composition of the product, namely Dapagliflozin.
3. DAPLOGIN is deceptively similar to DAPLO and is used for identical pharmaceutical goods.
4. The rival marks must be compared as a whole. DAPLOGIN wholly incorporates DAPLO and merely adds the suffix ‘GIN’. Since both products contain the same API, Dapagliflozin, and are prescribed for Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus, Dr. Reddy’s argued that confusion was likely.
5. Registration of DAPLOGIN violated Sections 9(1)(a), 9(2)(a) and 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, as the mark lacked distinctiveness and was likely to deceive or cause confusion among medical professionals and patients.
6. Relying on the Supreme Court’s Cadila judgment, Dr. Reddy’s argued that pharmaceutical trademarks must be assessed using a stricter standard because confusion may adversely affect patient safety.

Razenta’s Arguments/Submissions

1. Razenta denied that DAPLOGIN was deceptively similar to DAPLO and asserted that the two marks had co-existed in the market without any instance of confusion. It further claimed that its adoption of DAPLOGIN was honest and bona fide, having adopted the mark on November 14, 2021.
2. Razenta submitted that DAPLOGIN was coined by taking the first three letters, ‘DAP’, and the last five letters, ‘LOZIN’, from ‘Dapagliflozin’, with a slight modification by substituting the letter ‘Z’ with ‘G’. It contended that the suffix ‘GIN’ rendered DAPLOGIN distinctive and distinguishable from DAPLO, both visually and phonetically.
3. Razenta also relied on other medicinal products sold under marks or brand names derived from the salt/molecule Dapagliflozin, including registered marks using DAPLO with additional suffixes. These included products used to treat Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus, such as DAPLOCAR-L, DAPLOYD, DAPLOSKY M and DAPLOSE.
4. Razenta argued that DAP/DAPLO was common to the pharmaceutical trade and therefore incapable of exclusive appropriation by Dr. Reddy’s.
5. It submitted that the suffix ‘GIN’ sufficiently distinguished DAPLOGIN from DAPLO and removed any likelihood of confusion.
6. Razenta further contended that, as both products were prescription medicines, the possibility of consumer confusion was minimal.
7. Razenta maintained that its registration was valid and that Dr. Reddy’s cancellation petition disclosed no sufficient grounds for removal of the mark from the Register.

Court’s Reasoning and Decision

The Court held that DAPLO and DAPLOGIN are deceptively and phonetically similar, and that both marks are used for medicines intended for the treatment of diabetes.

1. The Court observed that DAPLOGIN incorporates all five letters of DAPLO, and that the addition of the suffix ‘GIN’ does not sufficiently reduce the overall similarity between the marks.
2. The Court found that the dominant element of DAPLOGIN is ‘DAPLO’, which is identical to Dr. Reddy’s earlier mark. It noted that, in the pharmaceutical sector, the first syllable or prefix of a mark often carries significant identifying force. Accordingly, the visual and phonetic similarity between the marks was not displaced merely by the addition of ‘GIN’ as a suffix.
3. Since both products are used for treating the same disease, contain the same API, Dapagliflozin, and Dr. Reddy’s also markets extensions and variants of DAPLO, the Court held that a person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection could mistakenly perceive DAPLOGIN as belonging to, or being associated with, Dr. Reddy’s.
4. The Court rejected Razenta’s contention that DAPLO was publici juris, common to the trade, or generic, and noted that:
   1. DAPLO is a coined and distinctive mark, conceived by Dr. Reddy’s by combining ‘DAP’ and ‘LO’. It does not form a prefix, suffix, abbreviation, or short name of the API Dapagliflozin. Since Razenta itself used ‘DAP’ or ‘DAPLO’ as part of DAPLOGIN, it could not claim that either expression was generic.
   2. Merely citing four marks containing the prefix ‘DAPLO’, without any evidence of actual market use, was insufficient to dilute the distinctiveness of DAPLO or prevent Dr. Reddy’s from seeking cancellation of identical or deceptively similar marks, particularly for pharmaceutical products.
5. Relying on the Supreme Court’s Cadila judgment, the Court noted that DAPLOGIN is deceptively similar to DAPLO, an earlier registered trademark, and that the rival products are identical, contain the same API, and are used for treating Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus. Since the products are prescription drugs, the Court held that there existed a likelihood of confusion and deception.
6. On this basis, the Delhi High Court allowed the cancellation petition and cancelled the registration of the mark DAPLOGIN under No. 5208898 in Class 05. The Court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to rectify the Register of Trade Marks within six weeks, in the interest of maintaining the purity of the Register.

Key Takeaway / Analysis

The judgment reinforces the settled principle that pharmaceutical trademarks warrant a higher degree of protection because even a small risk of confusion can have serious implications for patient safety. The Court rightly assessed the overall commercial impression of the rival marks, particularly the fact that DAPLOGIN wholly incorporates the earlier mark DAPLO and is used for a product with the same API and therapeutic purpose.
Equally, the ruling makes clear that a “common to trade” defence cannot rest on the mere existence of third-party registrations. It must be supported by cogent evidence of actual and substantial market use. Overall, the decision is consistent with Cadila and underscores the Court’s patient-safety-first approach in disputes involving medicinal products.

RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys, successfully represented Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited before the Delhi High Court in this matter.