"Might Cause Injury To Health Of People": Delhi HC Restrains Rebanta Healthcare From Using Dr. Reddy’s Trademark “REBAHEAL”

The Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna observed, “This Court also notes that rival marks REBAHEAL and REBAHEAL are visually and phonetically identical and there will be confusion and deception amongst the general public, doctors & chemists. Further, the rival products are meant to provide for different ailments and will lead to serious health implications, if, on account of confusion, wrong medicine is taken by the prospective patients. Further, the class of consumers also directly, overlap. Both the parties use the name “REBAHEAL” for different purposes. Therefore, it will cause serious injury to the health of the people. General public would also believe the infringing product of the defendants, are same, as the name of the products are identical.”

Advocate Ranjan Narula appeared for the Plaintiff.

The present suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining violation and infringement of trademark, passing off, unfair trade competition, damages, rendition of accounts, dilution, delivery up etc.

The Plaintiff also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking interim injunction.

The plaintiff submitted that the suit was related to the plaintiff’s well-known registered trademark “REBAHEAL” and the illegal adoption and use by the defendants of an identical and similar mark “REBAHEAL”, though for a different ailment and a different composition. Thus, the present suit has been filed in order to protect the plaintiff’s common law rights and statutory rights in the mark “REBAHEAL”, which has been blatantly copied by the defendants for its “REBAHEAL” product.

It was submitted that the plaintiff’s product has the composition of “Rebamipide” which is used for the treatment of peptic ulcers and mouth ulcers. On the other hand, the defendant’s product has the composition of “Cissus Quadrangularis Linn & Moringa Oleifera Extract Tab” which is used for the treatment of pain and helps in the regulation of menstruation and repair of bone fractures. Thus, it was submitted that the adoption of the identical mark “REBAHEAL” will result in disastrous consequences, if one is mistakenly dispensed/prescribed/taken, for another.

The Court said, “Considering the aforesaid submissions, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of interim relief in its favour. The plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable loss and injury to its goodwill and reputation, in case, relief is not granted in favour of the plaintiff. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff.”

The Court also noted that rival marks REBAHEAL and REBAHEAL are visually and phonetically identical and there will be confusion and deception amongst the general public, doctors & chemists. Further, the rival products are meant to provide for different ailments and will lead to serious health implications, if, on account of confusion, wrong medicine is taken by the prospective patients.

The Court directed that the defendants were restrained from manufacturing, marketing, supplying, selling and offering for sale including online, advertising, directly or indirectly medicinal, ayurvedic and pharmaceutical preparations under the impugned trade mark “REBAHEAL” and/or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s mark “REBAHEAL”, as may be likely to cause confusion or deception amounting to infringement/passing off of the plaintiff’s trade mark registrations.

Accordingly, the Court granted an ad-interim injunction against the Defendants and issued notice.

Cause Title: Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited v. Rebanta Healthcare Pvt Ltd and Anr.

Appearances:

Plaintiff: Advocates Ranjan Narula, Shaki Priyan Nair, Aishani Singh and Shivangi Kohli.

Click here to read/download the Order