Delhi HC Bars Biodeal From Using ‘PEPFIX-DSR’, ‘MINOZIL’ Over Sun Pharma Trademark Dispute

Granting relief to Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., the Delhi High Court has restrained Biodeal Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. from using the marks “PEPFIX-DSR” and “MINOZIL” for its pharmaceutical products, finding them deceptively similar to Sun Pharma’s registered trademarks “PEPFIZ” and “MINOZ.”

The order was passed by a single-judge Bench of Justice Tejas Karia while dealing with Sun Pharma’s application seeking summary judgment against Biodeal Pharmaceuticals in a commercial suit for trademark infringement, passing off, dilution, and unfair competition.

In its submissions before the Court, Sun Pharma contended that it is the registered proprietor and prior user of the marks “PEPFIZ” and “MINOZ,” which have been in continuous and extensive use for decades and enjoy substantial goodwill in the pharmaceutical market

It was argued that Biodeal had adopted the impugned marks “PEPFIX-DSR” and “MINOZIL” in respect of identical medicinal products with a dishonest intent to trade upon Sun Pharma’s reputation, particularly when the trade channels and consumer base were the same.

The Court held that a clear case of infringement had been made out. It observed that the impugned products were likely to cause confusion in the course of trade, leading consumers to associate the infringing products with Sun Pharma, resulting in erosion of consumer trust and dilution of the plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation among members of the trade and the public.

Allowing the plea, the Court observed, “Defendant No. 2 has attempted to ride on the immense and valuable goodwill and reputation enjoyed by the Plaintiff, but is also attempting to show association or nexus with the Plaintiff, where none exists. There is a strong likelihood that unwary consumers will be duped into buying the infringing products under the Impugned Marks by believing them to be originating from the Plaintiff, which is detrimental to not only the reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiff, but is also detrimental to the consumers as they are being deceived into buying inferior quality products of Defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 2 is dealing with identical goods. Even the trade channels as well as the consumers of Defendant No. 2 are identical to that of the Plaintiff.”

The Court further held that, prima facie, the impugned marks adopted and used by Biodeal were visually, phonetically, and structurally similar to Sun Pharma’s trademarks and were likely to confuse an unwary consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection regarding the source or origin of the products.

While Sun Pharma gave up its claim for damages, the Court granted relief on costs. Considering the non-appearance of Biodeal Pharmaceuticals and the facts of the case, the Court held that Sun Pharma would be entitled to recover the costs of the proceedings from the defendant in accordance with the Commercial Courts Act and the applicable rules.

Case Title:  Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Oziel Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. & Anr.

Bench: Justice Tejas Karia

Date of Decision: 16 December 2025