Delhi High Court Refuses To Cancel 'REKIN-SP' Trademark Registration In Rexcin Pharma Plea

In a judgment dated January 27, 2026, Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that Rexcin Pharmaceuticals had failed to establish any use of 'REXCIN' as a trademark for pharmaceutical products and therefore, could not seek removal of the 'REKIN-SP' mark.

The Court also rejected Rexcin Pharmaceuticals' application for interim injunction seeking to restrain the use of the 'REKIN-SP' mark, holding that in the absence of proof of trademark use or goodwill in 'REXCIN,' no case of deceptive similarity or passing-off was made out at the interim stage.

Addressing the issue of similarity, the Court observed, “the Petitioner has failed to show any use of the trademark REXCIN as a source identifier for pharmaceutical products sold by it whether in 2017 or even at the present time; therefore, the question of similarity or deceptive similarity of the trademark does not arise for consideration.”

The dispute arose from two connected proceedings, a rectification plea by Rexcin Pharmaceuticals seeking cancellation of the 'REKIN-SP' mark and a trademark infringement and passing-off suit in which Rexcin Pharmaceuticals sought interim injunction against the use of the rival mark. The court first examined the rectification plea to determine the parties' rights in their respective marks before considering the request for interim relief.

Rexcin Pharmaceuticals sought removal of the 'REKIN-SP' mark, which was applied for in May 2017 and is registered in Class 5 for pharmaceutical products, on the ground that it was allegedly deceptively similar to 'REXCIN.'

The company asserted prior rights by claiming that it had been using the name 'REXCIN' since 2003 and that the later adoption of 'REKIN-SP' amounted to infringement and passing off. The Court, however, found that this claim was not supported by any evidence of trademark use for pharmaceutical products

Opposing the plea, Rekin Pharmaceuticals Private Limited argued that it was a prior and bona fide adopter of the mark and that the rival company did not market or sell any medicines under the name 'REXCIN'. It was submitted that 'REXCIN' was used only as a corporate or trade name, while medicines were sold under third-party brand names.

Upon examining the material on record, the Court noted that when the trademark application for 'REKIN-SP' was filed, Rexcin Pharmaceuticals neither had a registration nor a pending application for 'REXCIN' in Class 5. The Court further noted that the 'REXCIN' trademark registration was obtained only in 2022, several years after the adoption of 'REKIN-SP'.

“The material on record unequivocally establishes that the Petitioner has not used the mark 'REXCIN' as a source identifier in relation to pharmaceutical products,” the Court said. 

It held that mere use of a corporate name or its incidental appearance on product packaging does not amount to trademark use capable of conferring statutory or common law rights.

The Court also rejected the plea of passing off, holding that the essential elements of goodwill, misrepresentation and damage were not established.

Rejecting the plea for interim injunction, the Court observed that, “the parties operate in distinct and non-overlapping spheres, there was no overlap of goods, trade channels, or consumer base, and despite several years of concurrent existence, no evidence of actual or likely confusion, goodwill, or reputation of the Petitioner's mark REXCIN was shown. Consequently, the essential ingredients of deceptive similarity, confusion, and passing off are found to be absent.”

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the rectification petition, declined to cancel the registration of the 'REKIN-SP' trademark and rejected the application seeking interim injunction against its use.

For Petitioner: Advocates Sachin Gupta, Rohit Pradhan, Prashansa Singh, Ajay Kumar and Adarsh Agarwal

For Respondents: Advocates Manoj Kumar and Amit Kumar