Delhi High Court Bars “EMSURE” Pharma Mark For Infringing Emcure Trademark

Justice Jyoti Singh delivered the judgment on January 13, 2026, while deciding a trademark infringement and passing-off suit filed by Emcure Pharmaceuticals. As Emsure Pharmaceutical failed to appear before the Court despite service of summons, the matter proceeded ex-parte.

The Court observed that, “Plaintiff is right that there is a strong likelihood that because of the similarity in the competing trademarks and goods in question, unwary consumers will be duped into buying the impugned products under the impugned trademark EMSURE, believing that they originate from the Plaintiff. This will be detrimental not only to Plaintiff's goodwill and reputation but also to consumers and larger public interest considering that the goods in question are pharmaceutical products.”

Emcure Pharmaceuticals told the Court that it adopted the mark “EMCURE” as early as 1979 and has also been using it as its corporate and trade name. The company stated that it has continuously used the mark in the pharmaceutical sector in India and abroad for several decades, during which time the mark has acquired significant goodwill and reputation.

According to Emcure, the rival company Emsure Pharmaceutical adopted the mark “EMSURE” for pharmaceutical products that are identical in nature. It was argued that the disputed mark was visually and phonetically identical to “EMCURE” and was adopted with the intent of taking unfair advantage of Emcure's established reputation in the market.

The Court noted that an ex-parte interim injunction had earlier been granted in May 2025, restraining Emsure Pharmaceutical from manufacturing, selling, marketing or advertising products under the “EMSURE” mark. It was also recorded that despite receiving summons, the rival company neither filed a response nor took any steps to contest the proceedings.

Upon examining the material on record, the Court held that the “EMCURE” trademark is distinctive and has acquired substantial goodwill through long and continuous use, significant sales turnover and extensive promotional activities.

Finding the rival marks to be deceptively similar and confusion to be inevitable, the Court observed, “In the instant case, the impugned mark EMSURE is deceptively similar to Plaintiff's mark EMCURE and use of alphabet 'S' in place of 'C' cannot aid the Defendant. The rival goods are similar/identical and confusion is inevitable. Consequently, Plaintiff has established that the Defendant is infringing its registered trademark EMCURE.”

Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., the Court reiterated that confusion between pharmaceutical trademarks may have serious public health consequences.

“Drugs are poisons, not sweets. Confusion between medicinal products may, therefore, be life threatening, not merely inconvenient. Noting the frailty of human nature and pressures on doctors, there should be as many clear indicators as possible to distinguish two medicinal products from each other. In a nutshell, the Supreme Court held that the threshold of measuring confusion must be different in pharmaceutical products as compared to other products,” the Court noted.

Accordingly, the Court permanently restrained Emsure Pharmaceutical Private Limited from using the mark “EMSURE” or any other deceptively similar mark.

The Court also awarded litigation costs in favour of Emcure Pharmaceuticals, directing that the actual costs be determined in accordance with the applicable rules.

For Plaintiff: Advocates Archana Sahadeva, Shiwangi Singh and Harshit Bhoi